Contract Interpretation is a Matter of State Law
Post 4918
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-jurisdiction-requires-issue-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-xudpc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v5jxznx-federal-jurisdiction-requires-a-federal-issue.html and at https://youtu.be/Blh_2tALXVE and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Lititz Mutual Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it is under no obligation to defend or indemnify Steve Wilson in the underlying/related action. The USDC issued a rule to show cause why the instant case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In Lititz Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steve D. Wilson, et al., No. 5:24-cv-0155, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 22, 2024) the court resolved the question of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Steve Wilson is an insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by Lititz Mutual Insurance Company. Lititz, sued Wilson seeking a declaratory judgment that it is under no obligation to defend or indemnify him pursuant to that policy in the underlying/related action.
The Complaint premised the Court’s jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and because Plaintiffs in the underlying matter allege violations of the United States Constitution.
Lititz moved for Summary Judgment arguing that there exists no issue of material fact that the underlying claims arose outside of the Policy period and that the Policy excludes coverage for the intentional acts alleged in the underlying suit.
Analysis – The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this suit.
Lititz bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction exists.
In its Complaint, Lititz seeks two counts of declaratory relief. However, the Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction; it merely defines a remedy. The controversy must have its own jurisdictional basis.
Lititz invoked federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs in the underlying matter allege violations of the United States Constitution. In the declaratory judgment context, federal courts have regularly taken original jurisdiction over suits in which, if the declaratory judgment defendant brought a coercive action to enforce its rights, that suit would necessarily present a federal question.
However, there is no federal question where, in a hypothetical suit bringing a coercive action to enforce his rights, Wilson would be asserting a state law breach of contract claim against Lititz, not violations of the United States Constitution.
Since breach of contract does not arise under the Constitution or any federal law, Lititz failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.
Special Limited Federal Question
In special and limited federal question cases, explaining that federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is:
necessarily raised,
actually disputed,
substantial, and
capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.
The question faced by the court is “would the hypothetical breach of contract suit necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?” The USDC held that it does not.
Lititz’s first argument is that the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint occurred before the policy was in effect. This plainly does not necessarily raise a federal question. It is simply a matter of timing regarding the intended harm exclusion.
Contract interpretation is a matter of state law and thus does not necessarily raise a federal issue. Resolving the hypothetical breach of contract suit does not turn on substantial questions of federal law, it merely requires comparing the four corners of the insurance contract to the four corners of the complaint.
In this context, that would require a court to determine whether Wilson’s alleged actions were expected or intended within the meaning of the policy exclusion, not whether a constitutional violation occurred.
Since Lititz failed to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case, it was dismissed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance companies seem to prefer dispute resolution to happen in federal court. Lititz failed to allege facts that would raise federal jurisdiction for its declaratory relief action. Jurisdiction was clear in any state court and this waste of time will arise in a state court shortly after this decision. The duty to defend can be resolved in state court by bringing the same cause of action where jurisdiction resides.
(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
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
Intentionally Shooting a Woman With A Rifle is Murder
Post 5196
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog and more than 5150 posts.
You Plead Guilty You Must Accept the Sentence
In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Mark D. Redfield, No. 20 WDA 2025, No. J-S24010-25, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 19, 2025) the appellate court reviewed the case of Mark D. Redfield, who pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for killing April Dunkle with malice using a rifle.
Affirmation of Sentence:
The sentencing court’s judgment was affirmed, and jurisdiction was relinquished, concluding no abuse of discretion occurred.
Reasonable Inference on Trigger Pulling:
The sentencing court reasonably inferred from the guilty plea facts that the appellant pulled the trigger causing the victim’s death, an inference supported by the record and consistent with the plea.
Guilty Plea Facts:
The appellant admitted during the plea hearing...
The Judicial Proceedings Privilege
Post 5196
Posted on September 25, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Judicial Proceeding Privilege Limits Litigation
In David Camp, and Laura Beth Waller v. Professional Employee Services, d/b/a Insurance Branch, and Brendan Cassity, CIVIL No. 24-3568 (RJL), United States District Court, District of Columbia (September 22, 2025) a defamation lawsuit filed by David Camp and Laura Beth Waller against Insurance Branch and Brendon Cassity alleging libel based on statements made in a letter accusing them of mishandling funds and demanding refunds and investigations.
The court examined whether the judicial proceedings privilege applieD to bar the defamation claims.
Case background:
Plaintiffs Camp and Waller, executives of NOSSCR and its Foundation, sued defendants Insurance Branch and Cassity over a letter alleging financial misconduct and demanding refunds and audits. The letter ...
Misrepresentation or Concealment of a Material Fact Supports Rescission
Post 5195
Don’t Lie to Your Insurance Company
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v6zefq8-untrue-application-for-insurance-voids-policy.html and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Imani Page v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, No. 370765, Court of Appeals of Michigan (September 22, 2025) because defendant successfully established fraud in the procurement, and requested rescission, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant was entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio.
FACTS
Plaintiff's Application:
Plaintiff applied for an insurance policy with the defendant, indicating that the primary use of her SUV would be for "Pleasure/Personal" purposes.
Misrepresentation:
Plaintiff misrepresented that she would not use the SUV for food delivery, but records show she was compensated for delivering food.
Accident:
Plaintiff's SUV was involved in an accident on August ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
Post 5185
Posted on September 8, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gePN7rjm and at https://lnkd.in/gzPwr-9q
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers.
The Dishonest Chiropractor/Physician
How a Need for Profit Led Health Care Providers to Crime
See the full video at and at
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
How Elderly Doctors Fund their ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
