Keeping Clients Funds Without Right Excluded Professional Service
Profit, Remuneration, or Advantage When Insured Not Legally Entitled Excluded
Post 4856
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gMkQKyWr, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-UVbnyr and at https://lnkd.in/gj_dy-K8, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
In USCC Services, LLC, et al., The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack v. Young America, LLC, Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co., No. A23-1982, Court of Appeals of Minnesota (August 5, 2024) resolved an insurance dispute.
Appellants each obtained a judgment against an insured defendant in separate district court proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty based on the defendant mishandling funds that it held in trust for appellants. Since the insured was bankrupt and without assets the judgment creditors sought to collect from the defendants insurer 'swith a garnishment proceeding. They failed in the trial court and appealed to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
FACTS
Prelitigation Events
USCC Services LLC, through its affiliate U.S. Cellular, provides cellular telephone and internet services. Appellant Motorola Mobility LLC provides mobile products and services. The defendant in the underlying actions, Young America LLC, was a marketing-services company that provided a wide variety of services to its clients, which included appellants. Young America administered programs and services, including rebates, refunds, incentives, and prepaid-product programs, that involved remitting payments to its clients' customers.
In 2020, Young America became insolvent and ceased business operations. At that time, Young America should have had $493,757.19 in program funds from Motorola and $1,020,669.25 in program funds from USCC, but it did not.
Appellants' Underlying Lawsuits Against Young America
Appellants brought individual lawsuits against Young America. Young America did not answer the complaints. Endurance did not defend Young America against appellants' lawsuits and appellants obtained judgments for USCC in the amount of $1,020,669.25 and Motorola for $493,757.19 to repay the funds that Young America failed to hold in trust.
Appellants' Lawsuits Against Endurance
Appellants initiated this action as a garnishment proceedings against Endurance to collect on the judgments based on Endurance's insurance policy with Young America. Endurance did not provide coverage for appellants' judgments because they were excluded by three separate provisions of the insurance policy: the contractual-liability exclusion, the conduct-and-illegal-profit exclusion, and the professional-services exclusion. The district court determined that each of Young America's three wrongful acts fell within one or more of the exclusions. The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance concluding that the Endurance policy did not cover appellants' judgments.
DECISION
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Concurrent-Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply.
The Appellants posited that concurrent-cause doctrine allowed coverage. The Doctrine provides that damages resulting from concurrent causes are covered so long as the covered cause is a direct cause of the damage even though an excluded cause may also have contributed to the loss.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the concurrent-cause doctrine did not apply because there is only one cause of appellants' damages: Young America's wrongful use of the program funds-and the individual wrongful acts.
Young America's acts of commingling program funds, making preferential payments, and canceling the Lloyd's policy were not independent causes of appellants' damages and the concurrent-cause doctrine could not apply.
Endurance Met Its Burden To Show That The Policy Exclusions Apply
The conduct-and-illegal-profit exclusion provides, in relevant part: “The Insurer shall not be liable for Loss on account of any Claim based upon, arising from, or attributable to . . . an Insured having gained any profit, remuneration, or advantage to which such Insured was not legally entitled[] if established by a final and non-appealable judgment or adjudication adverse to such Insured.” Since Young America kept funds that belonged to appellants it gained a profit, remuneration, or advantage. The exclusion applies.
The professional-services exclusion provides, in relevant part: “Professional Services means any service performed by an Insured. ... The Insurer shall not be liable for Loss on account of any Claim made against a Company based upon, arising from, or attributable to the performance of or failure to perform Professional Services.”
Young America's duty to protect the funds were activities that were incidental or ancillary to the performance of Young America's core professional service of administering rebate programs. Because the conduct-and-illegal-profit exclusion and the professional-services exclusion apply to appellants' claims, the insurance policy does not cover appellants' judgments against Young America.
ZALMA OPINION
The plaintiffs were the victims of a business they trusted - the believed they could trust a company called Young America - and gave it money to hold only to find it wasted the money it held in trust. The plaintiffs sued Young Americas insurer for the money either stolen or just lost. The insurer refused because its policy had three exclusions that applied. The key to risk management is to be diligent when giving money to a company to hold and disburse. The due diligence failed and the plaintiffs have judgments that can only be framed, put on a wall, and wish they never heard of Young America.
(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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...