When Defendant Wins the Statute of Limitations Starts to Run
Post 4894
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gTUuqMUW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEGNXAdw and at https://lnkd.in/gQWSkEXT, https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Dr. Gerald Dworkin sued Liberty Mutual and various subsidiaries for wrongful use of civil proceedings arising out of a previous lawsuit accusing Dworkin of insurance fraud. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that Dworkin's suit was barred by the statute of limitations.
In Gerald Dworkin, D.O. v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 24-1590, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (September 18, 2024) the USDC resolved the issue.
FACTS
Dworkin was sued in 2017 by Liberty Mutual for alleged insurance fraud. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in Dworkin's favor, and Liberty Mutual appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which affirmed in a November 29, 2021 unpublished opinion. The Superior Court reissued its decision as a published opinion on February 1, 2022. On March 22, 2022, the Superior Court remanded the record to the Common Pleas Court. Dworkin filed his initial complaint in this case on March 20, 2024 two days less than two years after the remand order and more than two years after the published opinion.
THE MOTION
A court may only dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the statute of limitations when the basis for the limitations defense is evident from the complaint itself or other materials the court may consider, which include exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record.
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The statute of limitations for a claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings is two years. A claim's limitations period generally begins to run as soon as it accrues; that is, as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises. A plaintiff's right to institute and maintain a suit for wrongful use of civil proceedings generally arises when underlying proceedings have terminated in his favor.
The underlying proceedings terminate for the purposes of a wrongful-use claim when the defendant in the underlying proceedings successfully defeats the plaintiff's attempts to have him held legally liable. The defendant successfully defeats the plaintiff when judgment for the defendant becomes final, which generally happens when the judgment has been upheld by the highest appellate court having jurisdiction over the case or the judgment has not been appealed.
Dworkin contended his claim accrued when the Superior Court remanded the record to the trial court on March 22, 2022. That was incorrect. The grant of summary judgment was by law subject to revision during the pendency of the claims against co-defendants and was therefore not a final judgment until, at the earliest, the date on which the plaintiff in the underlying proceedings agreed to settle and release all defendants.
Dworkin's claim accrued at the expiration of Liberty Mutual's time to appeal the Superior Court's ruling because that is the point at which he successfully defeated Liberty Mutual's attempts to have him held legally liable, more than two years before the filing of Dworkin's suit.
ZALMA OPINION
The statute of limitations exists to protect defendants against stale claims which are difficult to defend because facts and witnesses become stale. Dworkin beat Liberty Mutual's suit claiming he committed fraud. If he wished to obtain damages from Liberty he should have sued as soon as he could rather than waiting more than two years and claiming that his account only accrued when at the ministerial act rather than than on the day the final judgment was entered at the time of the appeal affirming the judgment.
(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/
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
