No Coverage When Vehicle not Identified in the Policy
Post 4994
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gR4QU586, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gejUnkjZ and at https://lnkd.in/gsZjYCF4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
In Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Willie Richardson, No. 7:24-cv-0974-RDP, United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division (February 5, 2025) Plaintiff Progressive Specialty Insurance Company’s (“Progressive”) moved the USDC for Default Judgment. Progressive seeks entry of default declaratory judgment against Defendant.
Key Points:
1 The vehicle involved in the accident was a 2015 Nissan Pathfinder, which was not listed as a covered auto under the Alabama Auto Policy issued to the Defendant.
2 Progressive argued that the vehicle does not qualify as a “covered auto” because it was not shown on the Declarations Page, was not an additional or replacement auto, and was not a trailer owned by the insured.
3 The Defendant failed to respond to the complaint that was properly served on the defendant, leading to a default judgment.
BACKGROUND
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company (“Progressive”) filed a Complaint on July 19, 2024, seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not have any insurance coverage duties to defend or indemnify Willie Richardson (“Defendant”) in a lawsuit pending against him in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. The lawsuit involves a pedestrian, Estefania Aragones, who was allegedly struck by a vehicle owned by the Defendant on May 12, 2021.
The vehicle which allegedly struck Aragones was a 2015 Nissan Pathfinder. Progressive alleged that title documentation reflected that Defendant was the owner of that vehicle, had purchased it on July 4, 2018, and obtained title to it on July 17, 2018.
Progressive alleged that the vehicle involved in the alleged May 12, 2021 accident would not qualify as a “covered auto” because it was not shown on the Declarations Page for the coverages under that policy. Progressive further alleged that the vehicle would not qualify as an “additional auto” because Defendant had owned it for nearly three years but had never sought coverage from Progressive for it.
Standard of Review
When a defendant has failed to plead or defend, a district court may enter judgment by default. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).
Analysis
The federal Declaratory Judgment Act limits relief to actual cases or controversies. That is, under the facts alleged, there must be a substantial continuing controversy between parties having adverse legal interests. In order to demonstrate that there is a case or controversy that satisfied Article III’s standing requirement when a plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief – as opposed to seeking damages for past harm – the plaintiff must allege facts from which it appears that there is a substantial likelihood that he will suffer injury in the future.
These allegations, which are now admitted based on Defendant’s default, are sufficient to establish that Progressive does not have liability insurance coverage duties either to defend or indemnify Defendant under the Alabama Auto Policy issued to Defendant, Policy No. 937522831.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that Progressive does not owe any liability insurance coverage duties to defend or indemnify the Defendant in the underlying case.
The Clerk of Court entered default on December 17, 2024. On that same date, a Notice of Ability to Request Pro Bono Counsel was issued to Defendant. This notice provided that Defendant had thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to request appointment of pro bono counsel. Despite this notice, Defendant has not filed a request for appointment of pro bono counsel or otherwise responded to this action.
For the reasons explained above, Progressive’s Motion for Default Judgment granted.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance, as I have said often, is a contract just like any other contract. The Progressive contract provides coverage only for accidents that occur with a vehicle identified in the policy as an insured vehicle. The Nissan Pathfinder was not identified on the policy and, therefore, judgment was entered in favor of Progressive who owed nothing to the Defendant.
(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
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
