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
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Insurer’s Exclusion for Claims of Assault & Battery is Effective
Post 5250
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBzt2vw9, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gEBBE-e6 and at https://lnkd.in/gk7EcVn9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Bar Fight With Security is an Excluded Assault & Battery
In The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. Mainline Private Security, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 24-3871, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (December 16, 2025) two violent attacks occurred in Philadelphia involving young men, Eric Pope (who died) and Rishabh Abhyankar (who suffered catastrophic injuries). Both incidents involved security guards provided by Mainline Private Security, LLC (“Mainline”) at local bars. The estates of the victims sued the attackers, the bars, and Mainline for negligence and assault/battery. The insurer exhausted a special limit and then denied defense or indemnity to Mainline Private Security.
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mainline had purchased a commercial ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
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/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
