ACTUAL DAMAGES REQUIRED TO BREACH INSURANCE CONTRACT
Post 4972
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gNZ_-8UC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvV2jrXj and at https://lnkd.in/g4B2WMZS and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Ira and Patricia Potovsky bought an insurance policy for long term care from Lincoln Benefit Life Company in 2002. They sued Lincoln after it denied them coverage. The district court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to allege damages.
Ira Potovsky; Patricia Potovsky v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, No. 23-4130, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (January 7, 2025) the Ninth Circuit applied the law.
BACKGROUND
The Potovskys’ policy covered “actual expenses incurred” for qualified long term care should one of them become “chronically ill”- which the policy defined as requiring “[s]ubstantial [s]upervision to protect [themselves] from threats to health and safety due to severe [c]ognitive [i]mpairment.” The policy only covered those who had been receiving qualifying care for ninety days or more and then submitted a claim for reimbursement.
Mrs. Potovsky began to experience mental decline in her eighties. Mr. Potovsky contacted Lincoln to begin filing a claim under the policy in September 2022, because he intended to hire a caregiver for Mrs. Potovsky. Out of caution, Mr. Potovsky first asked Lincoln for a determination of Mrs. Potovsky’s eligibility.
Lincoln denied the claim. In its denial letter, after summarizing the medical record, Lincoln determined: “The supervision does not rise to the level of Substantial Supervision secondary to severe Cognitive Impairment as per the policy definitions…. There is no clear indication that Ms. Potovsky requires supervision on a continuous basis ….
“While the medical documentation on file does support Ms. Potovsky has a Cognitive Impairment, there is nothing in the file to support the Cognitive Impairment is severe and requires Substantial Supervision. The claim will now be closed.”
Although the Potovskys internally appealed this denial, Lincoln’s decision was unchanged.
The Potovskys filed suit. The district court predicted “[t]he breach of contract claim ultimately may be better suited as an anticipatory breach claim, which the plaintiff’s opposition seems to suggest.” The Potovskys added a claim for anticipatory breach to their original suit. They claimed that Lincoln’s denial confirmed it would not perform under the contract, and that this repudiation excused any lack of additional performance. Lincoln moved to dismiss again because the anticipatory breach lacked the element of damages. The district court granted dismissal with prejudice.
ANALYSIS
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. In short, the Potovskys failed to allege any recoverable damages, an essential element of a breach of contract claim. Damages are an element that must be proved to prevail on the merits of a contract claim.
Damages excluded from coverage by an insurance policy are typically not within the contemplation of the parties. The Potovskys’ only alleged damages are in the form of home health care services that Mrs. Potovsky would have received had Lincoln acknowledged her entitlement to be reimbursed for supervised care or in the form of the care provided by Mr. Potovsky.
Care given by family members is expressly exempted from the policy’s coverage.
Lincoln’s denial letter and its course of conduct were not inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right to wait until expenses were actually incurred.
The Potovskys’ two other claims-bad faith and elder abuse-cannot prevail without a predicate breach of contract.
ZALMA OPINION
People, and some lawyers, forget that an insurance policy is a contract. In this case the breach of contract claim failed because the Potovskys’ incurred no damage because Mr. Potovsky wanted assurance (or didn’t have the funds) before spending money to care for Mrs. Potovsky. The Potovskys’ incurred no damages and could not, therefore, prove a breach of contract and claims of bad faith.
(c) 2025 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
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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
