To Recover Appraisal Award Insured Must Actually Repair or Replace
Post 4855
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfAhbDWD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqwD6tSa and at https://lnkd.in/gHaWy4UM, and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 4850 posts.
Cresthaven appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for relief from the court’s order dismissing without prejudice Cresthaven’s suit against Empire Indemnity Insurance Company (“Empire”) and for leave to file a supplemental complaint.
In Cresthaven Ashley Master Association, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 23-12761, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 7, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Cresthaven, a condominium association, purchased a commercial property policy from Empire for a period covering March 17, 2017 to March 17, 2018 (the “Policy”). On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck the state of Florida. Cresthaven timely filed a claim with Empire for property damages sustained in the storm, which Empire denied on April 19, 2019.
Cresthaven’s Complaint, filed on July 15, 2019, sought a declaratory judgment that it did not breach its post loss duties, as well as the enforcement of the Policy’s appraisal provision and damages for breach of contract. Over the next three years, the parties conducted an appraisal and Cresthaven received two awards for property damages.
Empire a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction arguing that Cresthaven’s case no longer presented an actual Case or Controversy under Article III. The Court granted Empire’s motion on March 24, 2022.
March 24, 2022 Dismissal Order
Cresthaven needed to first identify an applicable law or ordinance that, if enforced, could result in a loss in value to the undamaged portion of the building or an increased cost to reconstruct any portion of the building, whether damaged or not. Second, the applicable law or ordinance needed to be enforced. Third, the applicable ordinance or law must have resulted in the aforementioned “loss in value” or “increased cost”. Cresthaven failed to satisfy any of the three preconditions.
The Court dismissed Cresthaven’s claims for failing to present an actual Case or Controversy.
Post-Dismissal Events
Cresthaven diligently commenced and completed repairs for several of its structures. Cresthaven never completed repairs or completed them timely to recover benefits under the Replacement Cost coverage under Empire’s Policy. Empire effectively invoked the five year statute of repose for property insurance claims under Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(e).
DISCUSSION
Empire never waived its right to invoke the statute of repose. Without evidence that Empire represented that it would not invoke the statute of repose, the Eleventh Circuit could not conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to attribute bad faith to Empire’s communications about adjusting the claim with Cresthaven after the dismissal.
Empire’s written waiver was very specific and waived only the “as soon as reasonably possible” and the two-year deadline with respect to repairs, the temporal limitations that appeared in the Policy itself.
Empire’s July 8, 2022, letter invited Cresthaven to complete repairs and submit requests for payment. The fact that Empire did invoke the five-year statute of repose after its expiration merely indicates that Empire intended to exercise its rights under the Policy provisions and the law, which intention was apparent from the very inception of Cresthaven’s claim.
Empire’s waiver of two very specific rights is not a basis on which to infer a waiver of all rights.
The Policy provisions required Cresthaven to perform the work and identify the relevant ordinance before seeking reimbursement and the district court still would have granted the motion.
ZALMA OPINION
Waiver is a legal concept that allows parties to agree that certain conditions of a contract of insurance will not apply as long as it is knowingly made without coercion. Empire waived two rights provided to it in the policy. That was all it waived, nothing more, and it certainly did not waive the Statute of Repose, which, when it expired destroyed the entire lawsuit and arguments of Cresthaven. An insured should never sit on its rights.
(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 ...
Title Insurance Only Insures Real Property
Posted on October 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
When a Seller Advised it Could Not Obtain Title to the Home Fraud Can’t be Proved
A Manufactured Home is Personal Property Until it Becomes Real Property
Post 4862
In Dale Johnson and Rose Johnson, Husband and Wife v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and Lennar Mortgage, LLC; Low Va Rates, LLC; Sandpoint Title Insurance, Inc.; Village Capital & Investment, LLC; and David Cassel, Engineer Agent; and Unknown Does 1-50, inclusively, No. 53126, Court of Appeals of Idaho (October 9, 2026) Dale and Rose Johnson purchased Idaho real property in 2012 with a manufactured home on it. Their purchase addendum acknowledged that the seller could not obtain title to the home, that evidence of title and an ALTA-7 endorsement might not be available, and that they accepted the home “as is.”
In 2020, after a HELOC application was denied, the Johnsons learned that the home had been wrecked and decertified in 2004 and that its 2006 conversion to real ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
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...
