No Contractual Right to Benefits No Bad Faith
Post 4846
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gB2vUyYX, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvUcT2XB and at https://lnkd.in/gj9ycSXJ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
The USDC granted the motion of insurer Medical Protective Co. (Med Pro) motion for summary judgment relating to Plaintiff Michaela Jeffery’s declaratory judgment action. Then, Med Pro moved that because it does not have a contractual duty to indemnify Dr. Justin Clemens for his negligent treatment of Ms. Jeffery, it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Jeffery’s bad-faith claim.
In Michaela Jeffery v. Medical Protective Co., CIVIL No. 3:19-cv-00023-GFVT, United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort (July 25, 2024) the USDC ruled on the remaining bad faith claim.
FACTS
From October 2013 to February 2014, Plaintiff Michaela Jeffery received dental care from Dr. Justin Clemens, then a medical professional insured by Defendant Med Pro. During this time, Dr. Clemens negligently installed Ms. Jeffery’s dental implants and then “abandoned [her] when she needed additional dental work” to correct the implants and repair the extraction sites. In response to Dr. Clemens’ negligence, Ms. Jeffery sued him in state court and obtained a default judgment for $283,095.00.
Unable to collect from Dr. Clemens, Ms. Jeffery sued Med Pro to obtain a declaration that the company is required to indemnify Dr. Clemens against Ms. Jeffery’s default judgment. Med Pro defended and eventually, the Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the contractual question. In June 2022, the USDC found that, because Ms. Jeffery had failed to fully satisfy the contract’s notice requirement, Med Pro was entitled to summary judgement and Ms. Jeffery was not owed declaratory judgment and Med Pro had no contractual duty to indemnify Dr. Clemens.
ANALYSIS
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the basis for its motion and identifying those parts of the record that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Once the movant satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and come forward with specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue in dispute.
The USDC concluded that Kentucky law is unequivocally clear that absent a contractual obligation, there simply is no bad faith cause of action, either at common law or by statute. Because Med Pro does not have a contractual obligation to provide coverage, summary judgment is appropriate.
Dr. Clemens’ liability was established. However, since the Court found as a matter of law that Med Pro has no contractual duty to indemnify Dr. Clemens for his treatment of Ms. Jeffery, Med Pro cannot be found liable for bad faith.
ZALMA OPINION
Apparently Dr. Clemens has scampered away from the judgment against him and Ms. Jeffrey’s judgment was useless so she attempted to collect from his insurance company that did not defend him to the allegations of her suit. She failed in her attempt to show Med Pro owed a duty to defend Clemens so her claim of bad faith also failed. Sometimes, winning a suit and obtaining a judgment becomes no more than a piece of useless paper.
(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
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
