Allowing Admissions to be Deemed Admitted Defeats Suit
Post 4889
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZhkYqrW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gwvXFp6H and at https://lnkd.in/gre_Ng6H and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Lynette Januzi appealed from the trial court's order granting summary judgment against her and in favor of American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance (AMCI) and Melissa Ann Workman. She asserts the trial court erred in considering deemed admissions and there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support her claims.
In Lynnette Januzi v. American Modern Property And Casualty Insurance And Melissa Ann Workman, No. 12-24-00016-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler (August 29, 2024) the Court of Appeals applied Texas law.
BACKGROUND
In March 2019, Januzi obtained an insurance policy from her agent, Workman, through AMCI. The policy has a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. She had a water damage claim and over a period of AMCI issued additional payments to pay contractors and various damages making the total disbursement equal to the $75,000 limit. On January 22, AMCI notified Januzi that the last payment constituted the balance of the water damage limit.
Januzi took issue with the $75,000 water damage limit, claiming she was unaware of the sublimit. She further claims that AMCI failed to adequately evaluate and pay her claim. Januzi also believed that her agent failed to provide a policy providing sufficient coverage and that there was a conspiracy between the agent and insurance company to underpay claims. As part of the discovery process, AMCI and Workman sent Januzi requests for admissions. Although Januzi responded to other discovery requests, she did not respond to the admissions request.
In November, AMCI and Workman filed a motion for summary judgment, emphasizing that Januzi failed to respond to the admissions and that they are considered deemed admitted. Ultimately, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Januzi's claims.
DEEMED ADMISSIONS
In Texas, once an action is filed, a party may serve written requests for admissions that can encompass "any matter within the scope of discovery, including statements of opinion or of fact or of the applications of law to fact . . ." If the opposing party does not serve responses to the admissions requests within thirty days, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted against the party without the necessity of a court order.
Withdrawal of deemed admissions is permitted upon a showing of good cause but Januzi has yet to request the deemed admissions be withdrawn or amended. Because the requests for admissions were attached to the motion for summary judgment, the trial court could properly consider them.
The deemed admissions were the controlling evidence before the trial court at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, and the court could not properly have considered affidavits that attempted to controvert those admissions
ANALYSIS
In their motion, AMCI and Workman specifically relied on the following deemed admissions:
1 Admit that you signed the application for the insurance policy attached as Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
2 Admit that you authorized and approved the insurance coverage amounts stated in the application for insurance.
3 Admit that you were aware of the water damage limit at the time you signed the application for the insurance policy found in Exhibit A (Signed Homeowner Application).
4 Admit that the water damage limit under the policy is $75,000.
5 Admit that Defendant paid the water damage limit of $75,000.
6 Admit that you replaced items and made upgrades to the insured property that were not part of the water damage claim.
7 Admit the majority of the damages to the insured property were caused by the contractors you hired.
8 Admit water damage limits of $75,000 were paid under the Policy by 1-20-22.
These admissions and many more established that Januzi was aware of the policy limits when she purchased her homeowner's policy from Workman and that those limits include a $75,000 sublimit for water damage. They also establish that AMCI made payments totaling that $75,000 limit.
Januzi's causes of action against Workman for negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation are rooted in her accusation that Workman, an insurance agent, represented that the policy "covered her needs fully" and that "she had the correct coverage." Therefore, the evidence establishes that Januzi was aware of and consented to the policy limits prior to her insurance claim, and Januzi cannot offer any conflicting evidence.
The judgment of the court below was affirmed and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the Appellant, Lynette Januzi.
ZALMA OPINION
When I was a young lawyer California allowed litigants to deem admitted requests for admission that were not responded to in 30 days. I filed, on behalf of my clients, dozens of motions for summary judgment based on requests that were deemed admitted. The plaintiff whose case was lost because of admissions deemed admitted is not without a remedy, her lawyers may be responsible for the error.
(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; and go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT
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 ...
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...
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...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
