Innocent Co-Insureds Have no Rights to Proceeds When Fraud Committed on Their Behalf
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gs8-VjBt, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSNZ_nQi and at https://lnkd.in/gEztt62b, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4808
Plaintiffs Timeless Bar, Inc. and Horseshoe Club, LLC sued their insurer Illinois Casualty Company, claiming the latter breached the parties’ insurance agreement. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that even though the fire that destroyed their property was intentionally set by an officer of the corporation and a member of the LLC, the insurer was obligated under the policy and Minnesota law to pay for the loss.
In Timeless Bar, Inc., doing business as The Press Bar and Parlor, and Horseshoe Club, LLC v. Illinois Casualty Company, No. 22-cv-1685 (KMM/LIB), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (May 21, 2024) the USDC, in a lengthy opinion resolved the issues of who was responsible for the fraud.
BACKGROUND
In April 2016, while still a married couple, Andrew Welsh and Jessie Welsh purchased a bar in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The couple opened the business as The Press Bar and Parlor and operated it through a corporation, Timeless Bar, Inc. (“Timeless Bar”). They also set up a real estate holding company, Horseshoe Club, LLC (“Horseshoe Club”), and arranged the building purchase through that company. On February 17, 2020 a fire that destroyed the bar. The Defendant and law enforcement later discovered that Andrew intentionally set the fire.
Illinois Casualty Company (“ICC”) insured The Horseshoe Club against the risk of loss by fire and covered as an additional named insured – “building owner” – for certain losses associated with the building itself under the Policy.
The Arson and Plaintiffs’ Insurance Claims
On February 17, 2020, Andrew Welsh burned down the bar. The following day, Andrew executed a Non-Waiver Agreement with ICC as the authorized representative of Timeless Bar as a named insured under the Policy. On February 26, 2020, Timeless Bar and the Horseshoe Club submitted the initial insurance claim to ICC via a “Proof of Loss” seeking approximately $1.4M in proceeds. The initial claim sought the policy limits for the building and other amounts. The claim states that the fire was of “unknown origin.” Further, the sworn proof of loss states: That said loss did not originate by any act, design or procurement on the part of your insured, or as affiant; nothing has been done by or with the privity or consent of your insured or this affiant, to violate the conditions of the policy, or render it void. Andrew and Jessie both signed that proof of loss on behalf of the businesses. There is no dispute that in the proof of loss, Andrew falsely stated that the fire was of unknown origin and that the loss did not originate by any act, design, or procurement of his own. Nor is there any dispute that his submission of the false claim as an affiant on behalf of the insured was an effort to defraud ICC.
DISCUSSION
The crux of the dispute in this case is whether Andrew Welsh’s conduct-burning down the bar and later lying about it in the insurance claims-allows ICC to deny coverage to Timeless Bar and Horseshoe Club. ICC argued that Andrew’s conduct is imputable to the Plaintiffs for purposes of all three exclusions at issue: his submission of fraudulent insurance claims precludes coverage for the Plaintiffs under the Misrepresentation and Dishonesty Exclusions, and his arson precludes coverage under the Intentional Acts Exclusion.
As explained below, the Court found that there is no genuine dispute that Andrew filed fraudulent claims on behalf of both Timeless Bar and Horseshoe Club. Because he did so, no reasonable jury could find that ICC breached the Policy by denying coverage under either the Misrepresentation Exclusion or the Dishonesty Exclusion.
Misrepresentation and Dishonesty Exclusions
ICC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Policy provides no coverage. He filed a fraudulent claim when he signed the original Proof of Loss on February 26, 2020, and the May 15, 2020 amended Proof of Loss. No reasonable jury could conclude otherwise based on this record.
“Innocent Insureds”
Minn. Stat. § 65A.01, subd. 3, provided that the entire policy was void if, either before or after a loss, “the insured has willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof or the interests of the insured therein.” (emphasis in the original)
The Court found that, even viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Andrew’s false statements in the proofs of loss submitted to ICC were dishonest acts and were made with intent to defraud ICC, and his actions are properly imputed to Timeless Bar and Horseshoe Club for purposes of applying the Misrepresentation and Dishonesty Exclusions.
Andrew’s actions are imputed to the Plaintiffs, the Misrepresentation Exclusion and the Dishonesty Exclusion preclude coverage as a matter of law, and ICC is entitled to summary judgment.
ZALMA OPINION
Arson-for-Profit is a serious crime. An arson fire is a specifically peril, the risk of loss of which, is insured by a fire policy. There is no “arson” exclusion in a fire insurance policy. The named insured may go to jail for the crime but that does not effect the insurance claim. Where Welsh went wrong was in signing under oath a false claim as a result of the fire. The fraud voided coverage and no one had the right to recover even his innocent wife and the innocent corporations who owned the building where the bar was located.
(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/subscribe
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
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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH
Go to X @bzalma; 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 ...
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 ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
