Plaintiff Entitled to Know All Insurance Available to Defendants
Post 4795
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gj9GfkNK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBzhkxnV and at https://lnkd.in/gyWVW89G, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Pedro Fundora filed suit against Robert Dangond and Maria Guevara after sustaining injuries when Dangond struck Fundora with a vehicle owned by Guevara. On appeal, Fundora argued that the trial court erred by granting Robert Dangond and Maria Guevara's Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement.
In Pedro Fundora, etc. v. Roberto Dangond, No. 3D22-1749, Florida Court of Appeals, Third District (May 1, 2024) the plaintiffs sought to rescind a settlement agreement because the defendant's insurer did not tell Plaintiff's counsel about all insurance available to the Defendants.
FACTS
During litigation, Fundora sent Dangond and Guevara's insurer, Progressive Insurance Company, a demand letter pursuant to section 627.4137(1), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides that:
an 'insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of a claim which might be made shall provide . . . a statement . . . setting forth [the information specified in this statute] with regard to each known policy of insurance ....' (Emphasis supplied).
In response, Progressive sent Fundora a letter disclosing only one policy, held by Dangond. Included in the disclosure was a statement "certify[ing] . . . that the contents of this disclosure made pursuant to Florida Statute 627.4137 are true and correct." Progressive did not disclose any other policies.
When Fundora later offered to settle with Dangond and Guevara, for limits based on the disclosures from Progressive, Fundora sent Progressive a demand letter, again requesting disclosure of information on additional known policies, and making the settlement offer contingent on verification that Progressive knew of no other policies. Two weeks later, Progressive sent Fundora's counsel a letter accepting the settlement offer. Progressive responded to the disclosure demand by attaching affidavits from Dangond and Guevara stating that there was no additional coverage.
On the same day that Progressive sent the letter accepting Fundora's settlement offer, it also sent a separate letter to Fundora disclosing an additional insurance policy held by Dangond and Guevara's codefendant, Dangond Construction, that potentially could provide coverage for the accident. Because Progressive disclosed this policy after accepting the settlement offer, Fundora did not have the benefit of reviewing the additional policy prior to offering to settle.
ANALYSIS
Fundora's request to Progressive for information on any known policies pursuant to section 627.4137(1) was an essential term of Fundora's offer to settle with which Progressive failed to comply. The Court of Appeals concluded that a settlement offer is unenforceable because, despite multiple demands pursuant to section 627.4137 and clearly establishing that compliance was a necessary and essential element of any settlement acceptance, Fundora was deceived.
Since the defendant's insurer did not provide the information until after one response and the acceptance of the settlement offer, the insurer's failure to provide the disclosure in accordance with section 627.4137 rendered the settlement unenforceable because the plaintiff made it clear that the insurance disclosure was an essential term and because the insurance disclosure is an essential term under case law.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Fundora that the settlement was unenforceable it reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
One of the greatest incentive for a plaintiff to accept a settlement offer from a defendant is the amount of insurance available when the defendant seems to be judgment proof. When an insurer violates the statute and fails to disclose that there is more insurance, the settlement agreement was made based on false information and it was unconscionable to accept a settlement offer based on a fraudulent statement of available insurance.
(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.
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.
Subscribe to substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe; go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk and https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy.
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 ...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
