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
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 ...
