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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
