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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
