Insured Must Reside at Premises at Time of Loss
Post 4860
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gYgSrXP2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqp9Wqxk and at https://lnkd.in/gSi8m6-J and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Perla Olave owned a house in Thornton, Colorado, that was insured by American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. In late 2017, Ms. Olave began spending a majority of her time in Missouri, and starting in March 2018, she allowed the family of her brother, Jamie Darci Olave-Hernandez, to live in the Thornton house. In September 2020, the house was damaged by fire. Ms. Olave had last stayed there in December 2019, and she had not spent a day in Colorado in 2020.
In Perla Olave; Jamie Darci Olave-Hernandez v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., No. 23-1337, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (August 15, 2024) the Tenth Circuit resolved the dispute over the meaning of the term “reside.”
BACKGROUND
American Family denied Ms. Olave’s and Mr. Olave-Hernandez’s claims under the insurance policy on the ground that Ms. Olave did not reside in the Thornton house at the time of the fire and had not complied with the policy’s requirement to notify American Family of her change in residence.
Ms. Olave and Mr. Olave-Hernandez (collectively, the Appellants) sued American Family and the district court granted summary judgment to American Family.
The Policy.
In December 2016, Ms. Olave represented in her application that she and her child would be the only residents of the Property, it would be her primary residence, and it would be owner-occupied. American Family renewed the policy in December 2019 (the Policy). The Policy’s Declarations identified Ms. Olave as the named insured and the Property as a “Primary Residence”.
Change in Occupancy.
In January 2018, she enrolled her child in school in Missouri and obtained a business license there. At that point, the Property was vacant. When the Policy was up for renewal in December 2019, Ms. Olave told her insurance agent that her mailing address had changed to Missouri, but that she was still living at the Property and was going back and forth to Missouri for work.
The Claim and Investigation.
The Property was damaged in an electrical fire on September 15, 2020. Ms. Olave was in Missouri.
The last time she had stayed at the Property was some weeks in December 2019; the time before that was in August 2019. But due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she had not spent a single day in Colorado in 2020. She also stated she had a Missouri driver’s license, and her Colorado driver’s license had expired in 2018.
American Family Denied Coverage.
In January 2021, American Family denied coverage because:
1 Ms. Olave’s Colorado vehicle registration for a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee expired in 2018;
2 Social media posts by Ms. Olave since 2018 were from Missouri;
3 Ms. Olave was the owner of Frida Microblading Studio located in [the city of] Town and Country Missouri and Ms. Olave maintains her tattoo license with the State of Missouri;
4 A blog focused on Ms. Olave’s business states that Ms. Olave “move[d] to the St. Louis area . . . to ensure that her daughter grew up around extended family;” and
5 Most notable, Ms. Olave registered to vote in Missouri beginning on 2/01/2018 and continuing through the date of loss.
Ms. Olave’s residency at the Property the District Court identified four relevant factors:
1 the subjective or declared intent of the individual,
2 the formality or informality of the relationship between the individual and members of the household,
3 the existence of another place of lodging, and
4 the relative permanence or transient nature of the individual’s residence in the household.
The District Court held that Ms. Olave breached her obligation under the Policy to notify American Family of her change of residence within 30 days.
The District Court granted summary judgment to American Family on the bad faith and statutory delay/denial claims.
DISCUSSION
Under Colorado law, residence denotes a place where a person dwells. It simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. Ms. Olave’s focus on her intent, without regard to her physical presence, is not a reasonable interpretation of “reside” under Colorado law.
The Court Did Not Err In Holding The Misrepresentations Were Material.
A misrepresentation will be considered material if a reasonable insurance company, in determining its course of action, would attach importance to the fact misrepresented.
No reasonable juror could conclude that an insurance company would not attach importance to the alleged reason for Ms. Olave’s travel where the Policy specifies a “work related travel” exception to the requirement to report the Property as “uninhabited” and no reasonable juror could conclude that an insurance company would not attach importance to a statement of ownership of items at the Property in determining whether Ms. Olave truly resided at the Property, as she claimed.
ZALMA OPINION
A homeowners policy is a contract of personal indemnity that requires the person who is the subject of the insurance actually live in the property that is the subject of the insurance. Ms. Olave did not live at the Colorado house and lied to the insurer when she renewed the policy that she lived there as her primary residence. It burned when someone else lived there and she resided in Missouri not Colorado.
(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
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
