Assignment of Claim Only Works if Over Deductible
Post 4845
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gyiPNYPD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggbRm_Ar and at https://lnkd.in/gPCX_aHK and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
In February 2019, Lauryn Frazier, a minor, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Frazier was a dependent resident relative insured under a policy issued by USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) which provided personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits and medical payment coverage. Emergency Physicians, Inc. (“Emergency Physicians”) provided emergency services and care to Frazier as a result of the accident and charged $753 for its services. USAA applied the bill to the policy’s $1,000 deductible, indicating in an Explanation of Reimbursement form that the bill was subsumed by the deductible.
In USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Emergency Physicians, Inc. d/b/a Emergency Resources Group, as assignee of Lauryn Frazier, No. 5D2023-0746, Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District (July 26, 2024) resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Emergency Physicians, as assignee of Lauryn Frazier, sued USAA for PIP benefits. USAA admitted coverage for the accident but alleged that Emergency Physicians’ bill fell below the policy deductible and as such, was the full and complete responsibility of the insured/claimant.
Emergency Physicians asserted that USAA’s declaration page cannot be relied upon as evidence that Adams elected a deductible, and thus, because the deductible form was not executed, there was no evidence of a knowing $1,000 deductible election. The court was required to determine whether USAA properly reduced its payment of PIP benefits by imposing the $1,000 deductible.
The trial court entered its order granting Emergency Physicians’ motion for summary judgment and denying USAA’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that pursuant to the statute, an insurer must offer the option of electing a PIP deductible to the named insured at the time the initial application is taken and prior to each annual renewal, and pursuant to deposition testimony, the deductible form was not provided to the named insured prior to the policy renewing. Therefore, the court concluded, USAA did not comply with the statute.
ANALYSIS
In its motion for rehearing, USAA argued that deposition and affidavit testimony and the insurance contract were more than sufficient evidence to support its assertion that a deductible applied in this case and that Emergency Physicians provided no evidence to contradict the sworn testimony attesting to the accuracy and authenticity of the applicable insurance contract.
The Court of Appeals agreed with USAA that the trial court’s findings are contrary to the record evidence. USAA employees testified that the declarations page reflected Adams’ choices.
USAA testified that it sent the policy issue packet, which included the deductible form, when Adams first purchased her policy and a similar renewal packet was sent at every renewal period. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings were not supported by the record.
The affidavits and deposition testimony were sufficient to show that Adams elected a deductible. Moreover, the declaration page, which the trial court previously found to be part of the policy, clearly indicates that a PIP deductible applied.
Accordingly, because USAA provided sufficient evidence that Adams elected a deductible and because a deductible form is not required, the trial court erred in granting Emergency Physicians’ motion for summary judgment. Moreover, because Emergency Physicians did not contradict USAA’s deposition and affidavit testimony, there are no genuine issues of material fact.
The Court of Appeals reversed the order granting Emergency Physicians’ motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for entry of final summary judgment in favor of USAA.
ZALMA OPINION
This case went through motions for summary judgment and an appeal over less than $1,000, the amount of the deductible chosen by the insured when the policy was acquired. Clearly both parties expended more money on lawyers and court time than the amount in dispute. USAA established that the insured selected a deductible and was, therefore, personally responsible for the first $1,000 of medical bills. Since the bill was less than the deductible USAA had no obligation to pay. Neither side won.
(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 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 ...
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Posted on September 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in educing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Long Island Rep. Laura Gillen Is Taking Aim At Criminals Who Have Been Caught Staging Car Accidents.
Time for a Federal Crime of Insurance Fraud
The accidents may be shams, but the felonies would be real. On Thursday, Gillen (D-NY) introduced the Stop Auto Fraud Act of 2026, which would make the “crash for cash” practice a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years behind bars, with sentence enhancements for smash-ups causing injury or death.
Rep. Laura Gillen is hoping her bipartisan bill will become law to give prosecutors a federal crime to prosecute cash for crash ...
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 ...
