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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
