When Claims are Fairly Debatable There is No Bad Faith
Post 4986
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gUnxtYNt, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g3Qbvh9G and at https://lnkd.in/gG3nfECc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Homeowners appealed from the district court’s denial of their breach-of-contract, consequential-damages, and bad-faith claims in Donnie Paul Bradley and Melanie Yvonne Bradley v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 23-1397, Court of Appeals of Iowa on January 23, 2025 resolved the disputes.
BACKGROUND:
Donnie and Melanie Bradley appealed from the district court’s summary judgment ruling and final judgment following contractual disputes against Allstate Insurance Company. The Bradleys alleged errors in the district court’s interpretation of the insurance policy for their breach-of-contract claim and the granting of summary judgment to Allstate on their consequential damages and bad-faith claims. The dispute arose as a result of:
1. The Bradleys purchased an Allstate insurance policy in 2014 for their Cedar Rapids home.
2. The policy included actual cash value (ACV) and replacement cost value (RCV) coverage.
3. The August 2020 Derecho windstorm caused significant damage to their home.
4. The Bradleys reported the damage, and Allstate acknowledged the losses were covered under the policy.
5. The Bradleys, unhappy with Allstate, demanded appraisal in November 2020.
6. The parties signed an appraisal for the ACV in September 2021, and Allstate paid the Bradleys in accordance with the insurance policy.
7. The Bradleys claimed breach of contract for Allstate denying RCV coverage, alleged bad faith, and demanded consequential and punitive damages.
8. The Bradleys spent more on repairs than Allstate paid out and they continued with litigation.
9. The Bradleys ultimately paid for the repairs by refinancing their home to establish a home equity line of credit and taking out a loan against a retirement account.
10. Allstate was to reimburse the Bradleys for repair costs in excess of ACV-the equivalent of the RCV-if repairs were completed within 180 days of the ACV payment.
CLAIMS AND PROCEEDINGS:
The district court granted summary judgment to Allstate on the consequential damages and bad-faith claims but denied it for the breach-of-contract claim.
The Bradleys withdrew their request for a jury trial, and Allstate eventually paid the RCV from the appraisal.
APPEAL:
The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision that consequential damages were not available under Iowa law.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the bad-faith claim was fairly debatable and that the Bradleys did not set forth a valid bad-faith claim.
DISPOSITION:
The question of whether the Bradleys were entitled to RCV payments was found to be fairly debatable as a matter of law. The Court concluded that the undisputed facts establish that there was no unreasonable delay in the ACV payment. Allstate reasonably disputed coverage as to the RCV payments on the basis that the explicit terms of the policy require repair to be completed for an RCV payment to be made.
The claim was, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, fairly debatable because replacement was not completed within 180 days of the ACV payment. The Court of Apeals concluded that the Bradleys could not succeed on their bad faith claim.
ZALMA OPINION
The Iowa Court of Appeals educated the Bradleys and their counsel holding that an insurance policy is a contract with conditions. The Allstate policy provided, as a condition, that to receive the difference between ACV payment and the RCV the repairs must be completed within 180 days of the ACV payment. Although there was a dispute over when the repairs were completed Allstate paid both the ACV and the RCV making the entire claim moot and the other claimed damages were fairly debatable and no evidence to support a bad faith claim.
(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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
