Plaintiff’s Sloth Results in Dismissal
Post 4977
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gdUshdxW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyiJMWct and at https://lnkd.in/gsCrhtBu and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company moved the USDC to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s Case Management Order (“CMO”).
In Hensley Roosevelt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 2:22-CV-05649, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (January 10, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
After the Plaintiff alleged damage to his home in Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and Hurricane Delta, which impacted the same area on October 9, 2020, Plaintiff, represented by attorney Harry Cantrell, filed suit on October 10, 2022, alleging that his home was insured by State Farm and that State Farm failed to timely or adequately compensate him for covered losses.
Due to plaintiff’s noncompliance with the court’s CMO, the nonresponsiveness of plaintiff’s counsel, and correspondence indicating that plaintiff intended to enroll new counsel, the court ordered that plaintiff provide a status update and enroll new counsel by September 6, 2024, or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
New counsel filed a motion to enroll for plaintiff on September 6 but failed to provide a status update. State Farm filed a status report on September 12, detailing plaintiff’s failures to participate in mediations under the CMO. The following month, it moved to dismiss the suit due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order.
Plaintiff failed to provide his disclosures to State Farm by filing them into the record on December 7, 2024 that were not only untimely but also woefully incomplete. Plaintiff failed to offer any information that would allow State Farm to compute his outstanding damages despite his previous representations that he was prepared to proceed.
State Farm’s records show that it has tendered $166,934 to plaintiff. State Farm then filed a second Motion to Dismiss arguing that the suit must be dismissed due to plaintiff’s inability to follow court orders or proceed under the CMO. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion under the court’s deadlines.
LAW & APPLICATION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, with or without notice to the parties, incident to its inherent powers.
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to engage with the court’s CMO by filing timely, complete, and accurate initial disclosures. The delays at this point amount to years.
Plaintiff made clear now that he is unable to provide State Farm with the information necessary to meaningfully proceed under the CMO or otherwise make good faith attempts at resolving the matter.
Plaintiff’s inability to gather basic information in support of his claims after months of warning shows that he most likely has nothing to back up his suit. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The case was dismissed.
ZALMA OPINION
Some people and their lawyers believe that if they sue an insurance company it will immediately give up and throw money at the plaintiff to go away in fear of a bad faith punitive award. This case establishes that the belief is wrong. State Farm refused to give up because it was sued and two lawyers retained by the Plaintiff failed to follow the rules and the case was dismissed. Sanctions greater than dismissal were appropriate but not imposed.
(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
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Serial Fraudster Loses Request to Shorten Supervised Release
Post 4976
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gC-PVpVZ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQmG4Tx5 and at https://lnkd.in/g9XHGMVk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Defendant Frank Capozzi, acting as his own lawyer, filed a letter-motion requesting early termination of his supervised release approximately 18 months into his 36-month term of supervised release.
In United States Of America v. Frank J. Capozzi, No. 3:16-CR-347, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (January 13, 2025) the USDC rejected the motion.
ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of supervised release is to facilitate the integration of offenders back into the community rather than to punish them. Congress has provided the sentencing court with the authority to terminate a defendant’s term of supervised release early pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
The factors the court must consider include:
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and ...
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 ...
Allstate Proactively Moves to Take the Profit Out of Insurance Fraud
Post 4974
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZtC28zc, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfgi7NnQ and at https://lnkd.in/gU7eWAmz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
THE ISSUES
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division was faced with a need to resolve whether claims of insurance fraud under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (the Fraud Act), N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 to -30, and the New Jersey Anti-Racketeering Act (RICO), N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 to -6.2, are subject to arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35.
In Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, et al v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, PC, et al, No. A-0778-23, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (January 9, 2025) resolved the issues presented requiring statutory interpretation., The Superior Court Appellate Division held that insurance fraud claims under the Fraud Act and RICO are not subject to PIP ...
What is the Meaning of “Void”
An article For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
“Void” can mean either void or voidable. Void is defined as “of no legal force or effect and so incapable of confirmation or ratification.”
Voidable is defined as “capable of being adjudged void, invalid and of no force (a voidable contract may be set aside usually at the option of one party).”[1] The Restatement 2d of Contracts defines a “voidable contract” as a valid transaction with legal consequences until the power of avoidance is exercised.
Although jurisdictions are split as to the meaning of void in this context the distinction is largely semantic since the actions required of insurers wishing to dispose of a void or voidable insurance contract are ultimately the same.
The full article is available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims ...
What is the Meaning of “Void”
An article For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
“Void” can mean either void or voidable. Void is defined as “of no legal force or effect and so incapable of confirmation or ratification.”
Voidable is defined as “capable of being adjudged void, invalid and of no force (a voidable contract may be set aside usually at the option of one party).”[1] The Restatement 2d of Contracts defines a “voidable contract” as a valid transaction with legal consequences until the power of avoidance is exercised.
Although jurisdictions are split as to the meaning of void in this context the distinction is largely semantic since the actions required of insurers wishing to dispose of a void or voidable insurance contract are ultimately the same.
The full article is available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims ...
ZIFL Volume 28 No. 22
Post 4939
Read the full article at Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdfand at https://zalma.com/blog.
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th 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/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The EUO is a Material Condition Precedent
A Key Tool in the Effort to ...
