Dismissal for Failure to Allege Facts to Establish Breach of Contract
Post 5005
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRJ8vggM, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEwNjztD and at https://lnkd.in/gGb947FR and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Boat Owner Only Gets Insurance he Asked the Broker to Obtain
After a boating accident in Greece the boat owner, Nicholas Galakatos (“plaintiff” or “Galakatos”), made claims against defendants, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and others (collectively, “defendants”) for negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arose from a boating accident in Greece involving Galakatos’ boat, “Galani,” which collided with another vessel in September 2018. This resulted in damage to both vessels and personal injuries to some passengers.
Nicholas Galakatos v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 24-11259-NMG, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts (February 24, 2025)
Court’s Decision
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that Galakatos failed to state a viable claim for breach of contract because he did not allege any specific provision of the purported agreement that the defendants allegedly breached.
Background
Plaintiff is a resident of Massachusetts and Vermont and owns property in Greece. In 2015, he purchased a boat (“Galani”) to use in Greece. Defendants are associated entities that offer professional services including insurance brokerage. Plaintiff retained defendants’ insurance brokerage services for the first time in 2006 and have purportedly relied since then on their advice to procure insurance.
Plaintiff purchased a one-year, $10,000,000 excess coverage liability policy from American International Group (“AIG”). The AIG policy was to provide coverage for losses sustained “anywhere in the world.” Plaintiff also purchased third party liability insurance for Galani from Groupama Insurances (“Groupama”) in May, 2018. He contends that he disclosed his ownership of Galani and his Groupama insurance policy to defendants that same month.
In September, 2018, Galani collided with another vessel off the coast of Greece, resulting in damage to both vessels, as well as personal injuries to some passengers aboard the other vessel. Plaintiff informed defendants of the accident, and they requested information concerning all of his property and liability exposures, even those for which it may not be providing coverage.
The collision spawned litigation as a result of which plaintiff paid an undisclosed amount in settlement of claims against him. He then made a claim on his AIG policy, which was denied, allegedly because defendants failed to add the Groupama policy to the AIG policy.
Plaintiff sued claiming defendants failed to place and procure adequate liability insurance coverage for Galani.
Legal Standard
Under Massachusetts law, breach of contract claim requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that 1) a valid, binding contract existed, 2) the defendant breached the terms of the contract and 3) the plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of the breach. Similarly, a breach of contract claim under New York law requires a plaintiff to allege 1) the existence of a contract, 2) the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations and 3) damages resulting from the breach.
Galakatos failed to state a viable claim for breach of contract because his complaint does not allege any specific provision of the purported agreement between plaintiff and defendants that defendants allegedly breached.
Plaintiff’s negligence claim is deficient because he does not allege that defendant was duty-bound to procure insurance in the manner he asserted. According to the complaint, defendant had a duty of care to plaintiff to procure adequate third party liability insurance for Galani up to $20 million.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Finally, defendant contends that plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is not actionable because the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiff and defendants. A fiduciary duty between a broker and an insured arises only in the narrow instance where there is a “special circumstance” or “special relationship” between them which, ordinarily, is a question of fact. Because, Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty he did not adequately allege a fiduciary relationship existed between him and defendants.
ZALMA OPINION
Galakatos’ complaint was that he received the insurance he asked Marsh to acquire rather than the insurance coverage he needed. Insurance brokers, like Marsh, owe a duty to buy the insurance requested by the insured. The facts alleged revealed that they did so and that there was no allegation of a special relationship requiring that Marsh deal with the insured as a fiduciary. Insurance brokers are not required to be clairvoyant and purchase the coverage the insured, like Galakatos, needed rather than what he ordered.
(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 ...
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 ...
