It is Inappropriate to Argue a Win Was Wrong and a New Result is Required
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gTAPUxuk, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gMpEesrR and at https://lnkd.in/gZaCxnFk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4829
Defendant, Bankers Insurance Company (“Bankers Insurance”), moved to vacate the Panel Appraisal Award Amendment & Clarification (“Amended Award”) based on three alleged “significant errors” or “clear mistakes of fact” only to see an unfavorable response in St. Joseph Medical Clinic AMC v. Bankers Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 22-4521, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (June 17, 2024)
BACKGROUND
This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute arising from damages sustained during Hurricane Ida. At the parties’ request, an appraisal panel provided an award in September 2022 (the “Initial Award”). The Initial Award provided for $1,066,798.39 (RCV) under the policy’s Building coverage and $12,729.86 under the policy’s Business Property coverage. Bankers Insurance disagreed with the Initial Award’s inclusion of a $61,485.00 expense for “Rose Office Systems, Inc.” (“Rose Systems”) within the Building coverage. Bankers Insurance took the position in its correspondence that the Rose Systems expense should be categorized within the Extra Expense coverage, yet Bankers Insurance chose not to pursue this objection and filed an unconditional motion to confirm in May 2023.
The Honorable Donna Currault presiding, denied the motion. The Court identified the possibility of double counting as a potential significant error that required clarification by the panel. The matter was remanded for that clarification. The Court identified no other errors in the award.
The panel issued an Amended Award in January 2024. The Amended Award explained that the panel had included the Rose Systems expense within the Building coverage and provided its reasoning for doing so. The Amended Award further provided a complete calculation of damages for all the other coverages, including Extra Expense coverage ($0.00 awarded) and Business Income Loss ($270,409.96 awarded). The Amended Award confirms there was no double-counting.
Bankers Insurance waited until May 2024 to move to vacate based on the same alleged Rose Systems error of which it was aware when it filed its prior motion to confirm in October 2022.
ANALYSIS
Appraisal clauses are enforceable under Louisiana law. The burden of demonstrating that the award should not be confirmed must fall upon the party challenging it. Contractually specified appraisal awards are presumed accurate. Although appraisal awards are presumed correct, a court is not bound to confirm an award that contains clear mistakes of fact. When an award reflects accidental double-counting that duplicates certain items or categories, that is the type of clear error that cannot stand.
Bankers Insurance’s Belated Objection To The Panel’s Treatment Of The Rose Systems Expense Is Subject To Judicial Estoppel And Lacks Merit.
If Bankers Insurance were to prevail on its first argument and its second argument, the Rose Systems expense would be subject to a lower policy limit. Bankers Insurance’s first two arguments collapse under the weight of its prior litigation strategy.
Bankers Insurance moved to confirm the Initial Award, which concluded that the Rose Office Systems expense fell within the Building coverage. Bankers Insurance made a strategy decision to abandon this objection when moving to confirm the Initial Award.
The USDC concluded that Bankers Insurance’s prior litigation conduct subjected it to judicial estoppel. Courts can invoke judicial estoppel to prevent a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a position taken in a previous proceeding.
Bankers Insurance asked the Court to rule that the Initial Award set the total amount of damages in this matter, including relative to an award of $1,046,255.76 under building coverage. In this motion Bankers Insurance asks the Court to vacate the Initial Award because, it contends, the Initial Award’s Building coverage determination was error. The two positions were irreconcilable.
Bankers Insurance’s Argument Relative To Lost Business Income Misstates The Panel’s Position And Lacks Merit.
Bankers Insurance’s argument does not refer to any actual calculation error-merely an alleged error in terminology-and the mischaracterization of the panel’s reasoning renders this argument confusing, at best.
CONCLUSION
Now, Bankers Insurance seeks to prevail by arguing that the Initial Appraisal suffered from a separate significant error, which has carried over into the Amended Appraisal and requires its vacatur. This attempt to “prevail, twice, on opposite theories,” renders Bankers Insurance the “quintessential ‘chameleonic litigant’ against whom judicial estoppel is usually appropriate.”
ZALMA OPINION
Appraisals often raise disputes over the finding of the appraisers. Bankers, although it disagreed with some findings of the appraisers, moved the court to affirm the award. The court sent the dispute back to the appraisers who submitted an amended award only for Bankers, to try to have the court apply the argument it originally abandoned. Judicial estoppel disposed of Bankers’ argument and the amended award was affirmed. Parties to appraisal awards should stick to their position and never change their position first accepted by the court only to ask it to do something different.
(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 my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy; Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
