Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geubrpc5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gspkZ5cZ and at https://lnkd.in/gawbsMNN and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4809
Many companies find that a single policy of liability insurance is inadequate and purchase multiple layers or insurance. Many times the policies follow each other’s terms and conditions, but not always. Thermoflex Waukegan obtained several lawyers of coverage but did not require the terms and conditions of each policy to be the same.
In Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc., Nos. 23-1521, 23-1578, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (May 17, 2024) reviewed the trial court decision.
Thermoflex Waukegan required hourly workers to use hand prints to clock in and out. This led to a claim that doing so without workers’ written consent, and using a third party to process the data, violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 to 14/20 (BIPA or the Act).
THE TRIAL COURT
The trial court concluded that an exclusion in the Basic policy renders it inapplicable to any claim based on the Act. The exclusion provides that the insurance does not apply to claims arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit card information, health information or any other type of nonpublic information.
ANALYSIS
Thermoflex maintained that this policy is ambiguous because the exclusion mentions patents, which are public. True, the list contains mismatched items. But it can’t create ambiguity about either the opening phrase of the exclusion: “any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information” or the catchall “any other type of nonpublic information.”
The Seventh Circuit found it was enough that the exclusion in this policy does not have a flaw.
DUTY TO DEFEND
The Excess and Umbrella policy, on the other hand, has two parts. Coverage U (for “Umbrella”) lacks an exclusion relating to nonpublic information. It does not matter what Coverage U includes; the parties agree that it covers BIPA claims unless something excludes coverage. The trial judge found that none of the three arguably applicable exclusions to Coverage U is so clear that it forecloses a duty to provide Thermoflex with a defense in the state-court suit.
The third exclusion, which the parties call the “ERP exclusion” (for “employment-related practices”) bars coverage of injury arising out of: a) refusal to employ that person; b) termination of employment of that person; or c) coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation, malicious prosecution, discrimination, sexual misconduct, or other employment-related practices, policies, acts, or omissions directed towards that person. Parts (a) and (b) of this exclusion don’t have anything to do with BIPA claims. Mitsui relied on part (c) contending that collecting and processing handprints to determine how much time an employee spends at work is an “employment-related practice”. The Seventh Circuit concluded that a general policy requiring all hourly workers to place their hands on a scanner is an employment-related practice but is not “directed towards” any given employee. It is just a term or condition of employment, and this exclusion taken as a whole is not concerned with the terms and conditions of employment so it does not prevent coverage for a defense.
The Umbrella policy provides for defense and indemnity only after underlying insurance (and deductibles, which the policies call self-insured retentions) has been exhausted.
Because Thermoflex has at least one other policy that applies to the BIPA claims the duty to defend does exist under the Umbrella does not begin until the limits of that policy (plus deductibles) have been exhausted.
With that proviso-which is part of the district court’s decision and judgment, Mitsui owes Thermoflex a defense under the Umbrella policy.
ZALMA OPINION
When primary or basic insurance policies provided limited coverages and an umbrella provides more expansive coverage, the duty to defend applies to the umbrella insurer once a primary or basic insurer expends its limits plus self-insured retentions. The decision eliminated coverage for some insurers and found a duty to defend exists for other coverages. To avoid such a result many insurers who write umbrella policies follow the basic insurer’s policy terms and conditions. Mitsui didn’t and must provide a defense under the umbrella policy.
(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 or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy.
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.
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 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 ...
