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
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
