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
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 ...
