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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
