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
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
