DEFINITION OF “CONTRACTOR” CONTROLLED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION
Post 4993
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ga26KM2x, shttps://lnkd.in/ga26KM2x, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
The Eleventh Circuit was asked to resolve who was responsible for a workers’ compensation claim filed by Steven Brock, who was injured while driving a truck for Stafford Transport of Michigan, Inc., while Brock, an authorized driver for Kenneth Carver Trucking Company, LLC, was not covered by workers’ compensation insurance at the time of his accident. However, Stafford had three insurance policies, including a contingent-liability policy issued by Crum.
In Stafford Transport Of Michigan, Inc., d.b.a CEI, d.b.a. Custom Ecology, Great American Alliance Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24-12058, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (February 4, 2025) the Eleventh Circuit was asked to provide coverage for Mr. Brock who had become a paraplegic as a result of the accident.
The district court ruled in favor of Stafford and Great American, stating that Brock was a covered person under the contingent-liability policy. Crum appealed, arguing that Brock was not a covered person and that exclusions applied.
ANALYSIS
On September 9, 2021, Brock filed a claim against Stafford and Great American before the Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation seeking payment of workers’ compensation benefits as Stafford’s statutory employee. Great American demanded that Crum defend Stafford against the claim.
Stafford entered into a consent agreement with Brock stating that he was a statutory employee of Stafford. Crum then confirmed that it would not extend coverage under the contingent-liability policy because Brock was not a covered person under the contract as an “Owner/Operator” or “Contractor” of Stafford and did not have a fully executed contract with Stafford.
A contractor is defined as someone who is a party to a contract or a person or company that agrees to do work or provide goods for another company. And contrary to Crum’s argument, the district court was allowed to look at the contract as a whole to determine the reasonable interpretation of that term.
Brock had a covered contract with Stafford through the Kenneth Carver Trucking agreement. The policy states that owner/operators and contractors must “[h]ave a written covered contract with” Stafford. A “Covered Contract means a fully executed contract between a Covered Person” and Stafford. As the Eleventh Circuit explained, a covered person includes owner/operators and contract drivers. And the use of the plural “Covered Person(s)” that “[h]ave a written covered contract,” in contrast to the other three requirements, which use singular verbs, means members of the owner/operator and contract driver group can collectively have a single contract, while the other conditions must be satisfied by one individual. So, Brock had a written covered contract with Stafford based on the Kenneth Carver Trucking agreement, even without an individual contract.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court correctly rejected Crum’s argument that the Kenneth Carver Trucking agreement was not fully executed even though Stafford did not sign the agreement. Kenneth Carver Trucking signed the agreement, and Stafford’s acceptance could be inferred.
The summary judgment in favor of Stafford and Great American was affirmed.
(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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
