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
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
