Potential of Coverage is Enough to Require an Insurer to Defend
Post 4765
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gK3HwNqT, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gc6PMjf6 and at https://lnkd.in/gBYyPuga and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
When two or more insurance companies issue When two or more insurance companies issue policies with a potential for coverage of a claim of bodily injury they should work together to protect their mutual insured rather than litigate with the insured and the other insurers. Litigation is expensive and may result in a case and result they did not wish to have.
In Admiral Insurance Co. v. Track Group, Inc. f/k/a Securealert, Inc., and Jeffrey Mohammed Abed, and Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London Subscribing To Policy No. CJ10028219, No. 1-23-1210, 2024 IL App (1st) 231210-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Third Division (March 27, 2024) the Illinois Court of Appeals looked to protect the interests of the insured other than the interest of the insurers.
FACTS
This appeal concerned an insurance coverage dispute between a general liability carrier and a professional liability carrier. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. CJ10028219 (Underwriters) and Admiral Insurance Co. (Admiral) both insured Track Group, Inc., a company in the business of electronically monitoring individuals using ankle monitors. Track Group was sued after a person wearing the ankle monitor sustained severe injuries while driving his vehicle. Underwriters had paid the costs of Track Group’s defense up to the time of the decision but it argued that Admiral should share in the costs, as it believes both insurance policies provide coverage in this case. The circuit court held that Admiral did not owe coverage under the terms of its insurance policy with Track Group.
BACKGROUND
Underwriters issued Track Group a general liability insurance policy, while Admiral issued a professional liability insurance policy. Track Group sought coverage under both policies in connection with a personal injury lawsuit filed against it in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff in that suit, Jeffrey Mohamed Abed, alleged that his leg was torn from his body after his foot, on which he was wearing the ankle monitor, became lodged between the gas and brake pedals in the vehicle he was driving. Admiral denied coverage and filed a declaratory action, contending that it does not owe coverage under these circumstances.
The circuit court granted Admiral’s motion for summary judgment and denied Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Underwriters argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Admiral, contending that the court’s interpretation of the Admiral policy was overly narrow. Underwriters argued that Admiral policy covers the injury at issue.
Where policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is considered ambiguous and will be construed strictly against the insurer. Courts construe the policy as a whole, giving effect to each provision where possible because the court must assume that the provision was intended to serve a purpose.
According to the plain language of the policy Admiral is potentially liable for wrongful acts arising out of the provision of “professional services” and “technology products.” The policy includes a general exclusion for bodily injury and property damage. However, that exclusion does not apply to bodily injury arising out of the provision of “professional services.” In other words, Admiral’s policy could potentially cover bodily injury arising out of the provision of “professional services.”
One of the four components of the ankle monitor is an internal central processing unit. The ankle monitor can make and receive calls, generate alarms, receive radio frequency transmissions, and communicate movements to Track Group. Because the ankle monitor is an electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data it is potentially a computer. Moreover, the ankle monitor likely constitutes “hardware.” Because the ankle monitor is potentially computer hardware, the Court of Appeals held that it is potentially covered by Admiral’s policy and potential coverage is all that is required to trigger an insurer’s duty to defend its insured.
Because the facts of Abed’s lawsuit against Track Group potentially fell within the terms of the policy the decision of the Circuit Court was reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
The court did what the insurers should have done – it read the policy which covered claims resulting from professional services or technology products. Since the ankle monitor was clearly a technology product and was claimed to be the cause of the injury that ripped off Mr. Abed’s leg, there was a potential of coverage and all of the insurers owed Track Group a defense. Working together both insurers could have saved money and served their insured fairly.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
