Insurer’s Reports to Insurance Support Organization is Privileged
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g-9uHEeK, see full video at https://lnkd.in/g_VivpdY and at https://lnkd.in/gNgikU9P, and at https://zalma.com/blog, plus more than 4900 posts.
Post 4912
Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Allstate”) moved for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff Zhiwei Chen (“Plaintiff”) opposed and Allstate filed a Reply. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, in Zhiwei Chen v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, No. CV 24-5239-JFW(Ex), United States District Court, C.D. California (October 2, 2024) and the court resolved the motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2023, Plaintiff was delivering food for Uber when he was involved in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Allstate insured Plaintiff’s car under an automobile insurance policy. The Policy provided that Allstate “may settle any claim or suit if [Allstate] believe[s] it is proper.”
After the accident, a claim was made to Allstate against Plaintiff, and Allstate settled that claim. Plaintiff alleged that Allstate reported the claim/accident to LexisNexis, and that Allstate’s reporting of the claim/accident caused an increase in his premiums.
Plaintiff sued Allstate in Los Angeles Superior Court “LASC”), alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) insurance fraud; (4) defamation; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Allstate removed this action to the USDC.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Allstate argued that because the Policy gives Allstate the discretion to settle any claim that it believes is proper, Plaintiff cannot succeed on any of his claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) governs motions for judgment on the pleadings. As with motions brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), in addition to assuming the truth of the facts plead, the court must construe all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the nonmoving party’s favor.
THE POLICY GIVES ALLSTATE THE ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO SETTLE ANY CLAIM
In this case, it is undisputed that the Policy provides that Allstate can “settle any claim or suit if we believe it is proper.” As a result, because Allstate has the contractual right to settle any claim, it cannot be liable under any cause of action alleged by Plaintiff for settling a claim.
The insured’s policy gave the insurer the right to settlement as it deemed expedient and since this type of clause is not unusual in liability insurance policies and is appropriate to the benefit of the insurer and the insured. As a result, an insurer normally cannot be liable to the insured if the insurer does no more than settle a claim or suit within the policy’s limits.
Because Allstate has the right to settle any claim it believes is proper, Plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action based on Allstate’s exercise of its contractual right to settle the claim made against him.
ALLSTATE REPORTING OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM/ACCIDENT IS PRIVILEGED
In addition, Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against Allstate based on Allstate’s reporting that Plaintiff was involved in an accident and that it settled the claim against him because Allstate’s reporting of Plaintiff’s claim/accident is privileged. Specifically, California Insurance Code §791.13 allows an insurer to report personal and privileged information to an “insurance-support organization” when necessary “to perform its function in connection with an insurance transaction involving an individual.” See Cal. Ins. Code §791.13(c)(1)(2).
Plaintiff bases his claim on the fact that Allstate reported information about Plaintiff’s claim/accident to LexisNexis. Plaintiff also alleges that LexisNexis disseminated that information to other insurers who “use[d] the information released by [Allstate] to judge [P]laintiff unfavorably” which led to Plaintiff paying “more for insurance than before.”
The USDC concluded that Allstate’s alleged reporting of Plaintiff’s claim/accident is privileged, and, as a result, cannot support a cause of action against Allstate.
All of Plaintiff’s claims alleged in the Complaint, including claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, insurance fraud, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were dismissed without leave to amend.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC did away with this odd lawsuit without a need for oral argument because, if the Plaintiff tried to renew his Allstate policy it knew about the claim and if it applied to a different insurer he would be invariably asked to advise the new insurer about his accident history and would be required to disclose it himself. Settling claims against the Plaintiff was why he bought insurance from Allstate, he got what he paid for when they settled the claim, and they reported the claim to an insurance-support organization. The Plaintiff hoped by alleging bad faith he could bludgeon Allstate into paying him off. His attempt failed. In fact, the Plaintiffs actions were designed to deprive the insurer of the benefits of the contract fitting the definition of the tort of bad faith.
(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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
and at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
