Breach of Contract Required to Sue for Bad Faith
Post 4975
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g6znKECB, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzUBQqcj and at https://lnkd.in/gnHHbZbp and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan (“Foremost”) moved the court to dismiss in C & S Properties – I, LLC v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, Civil Action No. 24-462, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (January 10, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Damages from Hurricane Ida caused insurance claims concerning three properties owned by Plaintiff. The properties were each covered by separate insurance policies issued by Foremost when they were damaged by Hurricane Ida in August 2021.
Plaintiff alleged that, while Foremost has been in possession of sufficient evidence of the losses or had the opportunity to fully apprise itself of the actual losses and damages, it has failed to pay the amount due under the policies required by Louisiana law.
Plaintiff sued Foremost in Louisiana state court asserting claims under Louisiana law for breach of contract and bad faith damages. Foremost removed the matter to the USDC on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Foremost moved to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims based upon the improper cumulation of claims and because the suit did not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Joining Claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 provides that, “[a] party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant can seek dismissal of a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint on its face shows a bar to relief.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the insurance policies attached by Foremost, the Court found that those are referenced in Plaintiff’s state court Petition and are central to Plaintiff’s claims and thus may be rightfully considered by the Court.
Cumulation of Claims
The Court found that Plaintiff properly included its claims concerning each of the three properties in one lawsuit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a).
Failure to State a Claim
The allegations in the Petition are insufficient to support a breach of contract claim. The Petition contains only vague and conclusory allegations and does not refer to specific actions or omissions by Foremost.
Plaintiff alleged that Hurricane Ida caused substantial amounts of damage to the exterior, interior, roof, and other structures of the Insured Properties, that Plaintiff provided timely notice of the loss event to Defendant. The Court found that Plaintiff’s Petition failed to state a breach of contract claim against Foremost.
The Court reached the same conclusion with respect to Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. The Petition merely sets forth the legal standard applicable to Louisiana bad faith claims, without providing factual support for Plaintiff’s allegations that Foremost acted in bad faith.
Leave to Amend
In its Opposition brief, Plaintiff requested leave to amend its Petition if the Court agrees with Foremost that the Petition is deficient.
While Plaintiff has failed to explain how it would amend its Petition Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to file an amended petition addressing the deficiencies raised as to the sufficiency of its breach of contract and bad faith claims.
The Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule 12 was granted.
Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an amended pleading that addresses the deficiencies raised in the Motion to Dismiss regarding the sufficiency of its breach of contract and bad faith claims. Failure to amend will result in dismissal.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC requires proper, detailed and effective pleading when suing for breach of contract or the tort of bad faith, not just a parade of horribles alleged against the defendant with the statutory requirements without supportive facts. The USDC spend much of its opinion explaining to the Plaintiff what is required to plead a viable complaint against Foremost if the facts exist.
(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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
