Exclusion of Defamatory Or Disparaging Statements Made With Knowledge Of Their Falsity Effective
Post 5007
Liability Insurance is Limited to Unintentional Conduct
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ2XXKB3, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5HA2uAA and at https://lnkd.in/gDd9PE6C, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
The main issue presented to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the insurance policies’ exclusions, which deny coverage for defamatory or disparaging statements made with knowledge of their falsity, apply. The District Court held that the exclusions do apply, as the underlying complaint alleged that the insureds knowingly published false statements.
In New Hampshire Insurance Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh v. TSG Ski & Golf, LLC; The Peaks Owners Association, Inc.; Peak Hotel, LLC; H. Curtis Brunjes, No. 23-1248, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (February 24, 2025) the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
BACKGROUND
TSG Ski & Golf, LLC (TSG) was insured under commercial general-liability insurance policies issued by New Hampshire Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. The policies provided coverage for personal and advertising injury but excluded coverage for injury arising from the publication of material known to be false.
In late 2018 the TSG Parties began implementing a three-part scheme to coerce the Underlying Plaintiffs into paying annual assessments that the TSG Parties knew were not owed. First, the TSG Parties commissioned a “sham” audit of the annual assessments paid by Telluride between 2009 and mid-2015. They manipulated the audit to overlook payments made by Telluride through the True-Up Process, guaranteeing that TSG’s accountant would erroneously conclude that Telluride had failed to pay any assessments during the relevant time period.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by Telluride Resort & Spa, LLC and its principals against TSG and other parties, alleging that they knowingly published false statements to coerce the plaintiffs into paying assessments that were not owed. The jury returned a verdict for the Underlying Plaintiffs on all claims that proceeded to trial. It awarded the Underlying Plaintiffs $225,000 in compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages. The court awarded the Underlying Plaintiffs $2,298,225 in statutory attorney fees and $328,510.53 in costs.
THE ISSUES AT THE TENTH CIRCUIT
The insurers sought a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend or indemnify the TSG parties in the underlying lawsuit. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, concluding that the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions precluded coverage.
The TSG parties appealed.
DISCUSSION
An insurer need not defend its insured when an exclusion in the insurance policy precludes coverage. To avoid the duty to defend, the insurer must establish that the allegations in the complaint are solely and entirely within the exclusions in the insurance policy; that is, that there is no factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually owe coverage.
Because the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions precluded coverage, the Insurers had no duty to defend the TSG Parties in the underlying lawsuit.
The duty to indemnify relates to the insurer’s duty to satisfy a judgment entered against the insured. Unlike the duty to defend, the duty to indemnify arises only when the policy actually covers the harm and typically cannot be determined until the resolution of the underlying claims.
At trial the uncontroverted testimony of TSG and POA officers (all of whom sat on the POA board and approved the debt-collection letter) established that the TSG Parties knew the statements in the debt-collection letter were false when the letter was published. The testimony of multiple witnesses established that the liability imposed against the TSG Parties was precluded from indemnification under the knowledge-of-falsity exclusions. The Tenth Circuit concluded, therefore, that the Insurers owed no duty to indemnify the TSG Parties for their losses in the underlying lawsuit.
BAD FAITH
It is settled law in Colorado that a bad faith claim must fail if coverage was properly denied and the plaintiff’s only claimed damages flowed from the denial of coverage.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the TSG parties. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Liability insurance is designed to protect the persons or entities insured against claims or suits that they cause damage to third parties from an accidental or fortuitous cause. Since intentional acts are not accidental nor fortuitous there can never be coverage for defense or indemnity of intentional acts. The insurers did not rely on lack of fortuity by including in the policy wording a clear and unambiguous exclusion for claims of defamation if the insured had knowledge-of-the-falsity of the statements when made and were deprived of defense or indemnity.
(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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
