Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
September 10, 2024
It's Not Nice to Set Your Ex-Wife on Fire

Domestic Abuse Exception to Intentional Act Exclusion
Post 4888

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/greCfR_2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gjDDr7gS and at https://lnkd.in/gQh4rP7i and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.

Brenda Welch owned a home in Lynnwood, and lived there throughout her marriage to David Morgan. The home was subject to a mortgage held by CitiMortgage Inc. During their marriage, Welch and her ex-husband David Morgan had one child together, K.W.

On May 21, 2014, the court finalized their divorce, awarding Morgan the family home and requiring that he “either sell the property or refinance the debts into his sole name within three (3) years of February 25, 2014.” After the divorce, Welch met a new partner and moved in with him. Still, Welch and Morgan shared custody of K.W., and their parenting plan called for joint decision-making.

On November 16, 2014, Welch went to the Lynnwood home at a prearranged time to pick up K.W. from Morgan’s care. But K.W. was not there. Instead, Morgan attacked Welch, beat her unconscious, doused her in gasoline, and set her and the house on fire. Welch survived but suffered significant mental and physical injuries. The fire destroyed the house.

In Brenda Welch v. Pemco Mutual Insurance Company, No. 85466-6-I, Court of Appeals of Washington (September 3, 2024) PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company denied Brenda Welch insurance coverage for loss incurred after her ex-husband assaulted her and burned down their former marital home. PEMCO determined that the loss was intentional and rejected Welch’s argument that the loss arose from an act of domestic abuse, an exception to the intentional loss exclusion. Welch sued PEMCO. The trial court dismissed Welch’s claims at summary judgment.

THE INSURANCE CLAIM

At the time of the fire, Morgan had not yet sold or refinanced the Lynnwood home. So, the deed still named Welch as an owner and obligor on the mortgage. Welch and Morgan held an all-risk insurance policy on the property through PEMCO. The policy named both Welch and Morgan as insureds. It also listed CitiMortgage as a mortgagee.

The PEMCO policy excluded coverage for “any loss arising out of any act committed by or at the direction of an insured with the intent to cause a loss.” But it has an exception to that intentional loss exclusion for acts of “domestic abuse,” which provides that the exclusion “will not apply to deny an insured’s claim for an otherwise covered property loss if such loss is caused by an act of domestic abuse by another insured under the policy.”

A jury found Morgan guilty of attempted first degree murder domestic violence and first degree arson domestic violence. The trial court sentenced him to 260 months in prison. Welch then sued Morgan for her injuries from the assault. Morgan did not respond, and the trial court entered a default order and judgment against Morgan for $5.06 million. Welch also claimed coverage under the PEMCO policy. And CitiMortgage claimed coverage for the outstanding balance on the mortgage. PEMCO estimated the repair or replacement cost of the damage to the home was $463,732.82.

In June 2016, PEMCO found coverage for CitiMortgage but PEMCO denied Welch’s claim. It explained that the intentional loss provision “precludes coverage not only to the arsonist but to any insured, including Ms. Welch.”

Welch sued PEMCO. The trial court granted in part and denied in part PEMCO’s motion. The court denied PEMCO’s motion on the applicability of the domestic abuse exception. It concluded that Welch and Morgan were not family, so the domestic abuse exception to the intentional loss exclusion did not apply.

ANALYSIS

The Court of Appeals must construe insurance policies as the average person purchasing insurance would. That is, give the language a fair, reasonable, and sensible construction. And the Court of Appeals give undefined terms their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning. The Court of Appeal may turn to the dictionary definition of an undefined term to determine its plain meaning.

Welch’s policy excludes coverage for intentional loss unless “an act of domestic abuse by another insured under the policy” causes the loss. The PEMCO policy language parallels former RCW 48.18.550 (1998), the statute in effect when Morgan tried to kill Welch and burned down the house.

RCW 48.18.550(3) requires insurers to cover intentional loss caused by an act of domestic abuse by another insured under the policy. Modern editions of the dictionary define “family” as “the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children,” or “[a] group consisting of parents and their children.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (last visited Aug. 20, 2024). Welch meets these definitions because she and Morgan were raising K.W. under a parenting plan that granted them shared custody and called for joint decision-making. As such, they were two parents rearing their child.

An average person purchasing insurance would understand the term “family” under the more modern definition. Because Welch and Morgan share a child that they were raising together, Welch is “family” under the policy’s domestic abuse exception to the intentional loss exclusion. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for PEMCO and refusing to grant partial summary judgment for Welch. Therefore, Summary judgment for PEMCO was reversed and the trial court was directed to enter partial summary judgment for Welch for breach of contract

ZALMA OPINION

The exception to the exclusion was found to apply because – although divorced and no longer married – since Welch and Morgan still had joint custody of a child they fit a dictionary definition of “family” sufficient to allow Ms. Welch to recover her share of the insurance recovery over that paid to the mortgagee. Her ex-husband gets nothing and she will never recover the $5 million judgment she obtained against her ex-husband who will be in jail a long, long time.

(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

00:10:29
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
July 25, 2025
Plaintiff Must be an Insured to Sue Insurance Company

When Plaintiff Gives Up Court Must Grant Summary Judgment

Post 5154

It is Contumacious to Sue an Insurer if You are Not Insured

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmMWkcN and at https://lnkd.in/gJXMDYxG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Defendant American National filed a motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff is not a named or third-party beneficiary of the Policy. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff is not covered by the Policy, Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant breached the Policy or demonstrated bad faith under La. R.S. 22:1973 and 22:1892. In support of this contention, Defendant argued that the Policy only covers the “Named Insured/Mortgagee” of the property, Magee Holdings, LLC, and that the Policy does not name Plaintiff as an insured or a third-party beneficiary.

In Hannah Guillotte v. American National Property And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-00931-BAJ-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (July 16, 2025) Plaintiff, the ...

00:06:32
July 24, 2025
Prosecutors Use Omnibus Motion in Limine to Limit Trial

The Need For and Application of a Motion in Limine

Post 5153

Lawyers Present & Argue Motions in Limine to Control Trial Excess

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBv_pukH and at https://lnkd.in/gnX4tyXK, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5100 posts.

In United States Of America v. Scharmaine Lawson Baker, Criminal Action No. 24-99, USDC, E.D. Louisiana (July 7, 2025) Scharmaine Lawson Baker was charged with six counts of health care fraud. She pled not guilty, and her trial was scheduled.

BACKGROUND

Government’s Omnibus Motion in Limine

The Government filed an omnibus motion in limine which included several requests to exclude certain types of evidence and arguments.

Exclusion of Evidence and Argument Related to Specific Instances of “Good Deeds” and “Law-Abidingness”

The Government argued that such evidence is irrelevant and improper character evidence.
The Court granted the motion, stating that the defendant’s character is not an essential element of the charges.

Testimony About Defendant’s Own ...

00:09:08
July 23, 2025
Unopposed Motion to Dismiss is Deemed Confessed

Act as Your Own Lawyer and Failure is Almost Certain

No Suit Can be Maintained if Claims are Facially Implausible
Post 5152

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gJsqpbsj and at https://lnkd.in/gJsqpbsj, and at https://zalma.com/blog.

In Gabaryaahla Israel and Akiva Israel, Beneficiaries v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., No. CIV-24-1255-D, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (July 11, 2025) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Moved to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Fraud, Quiet Title, Injunctive Relief, Breach of Contract, Declaratory Judgment, Damages, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Violations, and Trover and Midfirst Bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs, who are self-represented, failed to respond to the motions to dismiss within 21 days as required by LCvR7.1(g) (establishing a 21-day deadline, and noting that any motion that is not opposed within 21 days may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed confessed.

BACKGROUND:

The plaintiffs brought this action against the ...

00:06:32
July 16, 2025
There is no Tort of Negligent Claims handling in Alaska

Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

CASE OVERVIEW

In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.

Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:

1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.

Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...

post photo preview
May 15, 2025
Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - May 15, 2025

ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing 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/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness

To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness

In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...

May 15, 2025
CGL Is Not a Medical Malpractice Policy

Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective

Post 5073

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.

In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:

Insurance Coverage Dispute:

Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...

See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals