Exclusion Does Not Invalidate Policy
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gc4XEkP9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnZwe9h6 and at https://lnkd.in/gT6-vh-d and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4822
THE DISPUTE
Jerquavius Berry purchased a vehicle from Gerald Jones Ford, LLC. The Dealership sued General Security and Berry, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding General Security’s insurance coverage.
In General Security Indemnity Company Of Arizona v. Gerald Jones Ford, LLC. No. A24A0477, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fifth Division (June 18, 2024) the Georgia Court of Appeals read the policy and ruled based on its wording.
Both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Dealership’s motion and denied General Security’s motion. General Security appealed. The Court of Appeals decision turned on whether a denied claim renders an insurance policy “invalid.”
FACTS
In order to purchase the vehicle, Berry presented evidence of an insurance policy with Falls Lake National Insurance Company (“Falls Lake”) to the Dealership. Three days after he purchased the vehicle, while fleeing police in Virginia, Berry crashed the vehicle, causing a total loss. Berry was later found guilty of crimes.
Perhaps because Berry was in jail and did not respond to Exeter’s inquiry it rejected the note and returned it to the Dealership. The Dealership made a claim for the vehicle under Berry’s Falls Lake insurance policy. The Falls Lake policy provided that claims for Berry’s property damage were excluded from coverage because Berry was fleeing police when the vehicle sustained a total loss.
The Dealership submitted a claim for Berry’s vehicle to General Security, but General Security denied the claim, stating that the loss did not fall within the policy’s coverage. The Dealership filed the underlying declaratory judgment action against General Security. The Dealership’s insurance policy with General Security provided coverage for insured vehicles until the vehicle was sold or leased by the Dealership or if the buyer’s insurance proved to be invalid at the time of loss to the covered vehicle.
DISCUSSION
Since Berry provided evidence of insurance and the Dealership was not fully paid the only dispute at issue was whether Berry’s Falls Lake policy was invalid at the time of the loss.
The Court of Appeals undertook a three-step process in the construction of the contract:
1. The first of which is to determine if the instrument’s language is clear and unambiguous,
2. If the language is unambiguous, the court simply enforces the contract according to the terms and
3. Looks to the contract alone for the meaning.
When a contract term is not expressly defined, the court looks to the usual and common meaning of the term. A policy is invalid when coverage applies but becomes invalidated through the actions of the insured.
The Falls Lake insurance policy does not contain a coverage exclusion for fleeing police for a bodily or property injury to others only damage to the vehicle. Had Berry caused a bodily or property injury to another while fleeing the police, that third party’s claim would not have been excluded. The Falls Lake policy was in full force and effect at the time of the occurrence and coverage was not invalidated; it simply did not apply.
ZALMA OPINION
Where the language of an insurance policy unambiguously governs the factual scenario before the court, the court need only to apply the terms of the contract as written. The General Security policy language unambiguously does not cover such claims unless the purchaser’s insurance policy was invalid at the time of the loss. Since Berry’s policy with Falls Lake was not invalid at the time of the loss the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the Dealership. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
(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 & 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.
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...
