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
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 ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
Title Insurance Only Insures Real Property
Posted on October 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
When a Seller Advised it Could Not Obtain Title to the Home Fraud Can’t be Proved
A Manufactured Home is Personal Property Until it Becomes Real Property
Post 4862
In Dale Johnson and Rose Johnson, Husband and Wife v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and Lennar Mortgage, LLC; Low Va Rates, LLC; Sandpoint Title Insurance, Inc.; Village Capital & Investment, LLC; and David Cassel, Engineer Agent; and Unknown Does 1-50, inclusively, No. 53126, Court of Appeals of Idaho (October 9, 2026) Dale and Rose Johnson purchased Idaho real property in 2012 with a manufactured home on it. Their purchase addendum acknowledged that the seller could not obtain title to the home, that evidence of title and an ALTA-7 endorsement might not be available, and that they accepted the home “as is.”
In 2020, after a HELOC application was denied, the Johnsons learned that the home had been wrecked and decertified in 2004 and that its 2006 conversion to real ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
