Clear & Unambiguous Exclusions Must Be Enforced
Post 4843
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzjEKn4B, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gCHvnn3v and at https://lnkd.in/gdUqKA4J and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
The Plaintiff insurance company seeks a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Jacob Jackson or his wife, Stacy Jackson, for claims asserted against them in civil lawsuits which allege that Mr. Jackson sexually abused and exploited minors.
In American Strategic Insurance Corp, a foreign insurer v. Jacob Jackson, individually, Inspirit Athletics, Inc, et al., No. 3:23-cv-05461-RJB, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma (July 24, 2024) the insurer proved that criminal charges against Mr. Jackson, including for rape of a child in the third degree, child molestation in the third degree, and communication with a minor for immoral purposes are now pending in Pierce County, Washington Superior Court (“criminal case”). Trial on the criminal charges is set to begin on November 19, 2024.
The Insurer moved for partial summary judgment on its claims against Mr. and Mrs. Jackson only as they relate to Jane Doe 20, as Guardian ad Litem for John Doe 20, et. al. v. Inspirit Athletics, Inc., et.al., Pierce County, Washington Superior Court case number 23-208692-4 (“John Doe 20 lawsuit”).
FACTS
The Plaintiff issued a homeowners insurance policy (“primary policy”) to Mr. and Mrs. Jackson. This primary policy was in effect between September 16, 2019 – September 16, 2022. In addition to the primary policy, the Plaintiff also issued an umbrella liability policy to the Jacksons. The Plaintiff accepted defense of the civil lawsuit at issue for the Jacksons pursuant to a reservation of rights. It then sued seeking a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify the Jacksons for any of the claims asserted against them in the John Doe 20 lawsuit.
ALLEGATIONS IN THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
According to the complaint filed in the John Doe 20 lawsuit, Mr. Jackson was the head boys’ basketball coach for Sumner High School, located in Sumner, Washington, from 2016 to September of 2022. Mr. Jackson is also alleged to be the CEO of Inspirit Athletics, Inc. d/b/a/ Sterling Athletics (“Sterling”) a sports equipment manufacturing and marketing company.
The John Doe 20 lawsuit contended that Mr. Jackson met John Doe 20 when he was around 10 years old and over the next several years showered John Doe 20 with attention and gifts of athletic equipment, Sterling clothing and gear. Mr. Jackson socialized with the family. While John Doe 20 was in the Jackson’s closet, Mr. Jackson stripped naked, cornered John Doe 20 in the closet, and began masturbating in front of John Doe 20. Mr. Jackson then allegedly forced himself on John Doe 20, grabbing his genitalia and masturbating John Doe 20. The John Doe 20 lawsuit makes claims for sexual exploitation of children and false imprisonment against Mr. Jackson.
INSURANCE POLICIES
As stated above, there are two insurance policies which are the subject of this case: the primary policy and umbrella policy. Both policies exclude “‘bodily injury’ . . . arising out of sexual molestation, …” as well as “‘bodily injury’ . . . resulting from any illegal or criminal act performed by, at the direction of, or in conspiracy with any ‘insured.’ This exclusion applies regardless of whether the insured is charged with a crime.”
Relevant Umbrella Policy Provisions
The umbrella policy also contains several exclusions that the Plaintiffs maintain are relevant. For example, it excludes “‘bodily injury’ . . . and ‘personal injury’ unless such liability is also covered under the applicable underlying insurance.” The umbrella policy excludes “‘bodily injury’ which is expected or intended by an ‘insured’” and “‘bodily injury’ and ‘personal injury’ arising out of: sexual molestation, corporal punishment or mental abuse”
DISCUSSION
In Washington, an insurance policy is construed as a contract and given fair, reasonable, and sensible construction as would be given to the contract by the average person purchasing insurance.
The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding the duty to defend should be granted. The Plaintiff has no duty to defend the Jacksons in the John Doe 20 lawsuit. Neither the primary policy nor the umbrella policy (which only provides coverage if the primary policy does) could conceivably cover the allegations in the complaint.
DUTY TO INDEMNIFY
If there is no duty to defend, then there is no duty to indemnify. Therefore the Plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment should be granted. Plaintiff American Strategic Insurance Corp’s Motion for Summary Judgment Is Granted.
ZALMA OPINION
Liability insurance is designed to protect an insured only against fortuitous acts. Sexually molesting a child can never be fortuitous. It is an intentional act that is both immoral and illegal and excluded by clear and unambiguous language in the homeowners and umbrella policy. The couple should be forced to pay whatever assets they have to the families of the abused children as well as serve time in prison. Insurance is not designed to make it easy to commit crimes at all, and especially crimes against minor children.
(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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
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...
