No Duty of Care Exists in Arms-Length Negotiations Between Insurer and Insured
Post 5011
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gUUtFnYe, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gmPWMdVj and at https://lnkd.in/gTZ5a7vU and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Failure to Read Insurance Quote Carefully Can Cause the Failure of Negotiation and an Expensive Failure of Intent to Insure
The Plaintiff, Association operates a “planned community” in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Defendant Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. (“B&W”) helps its clients secure specialized insurance, and Defendant Commercial Industrial Building Owner’s Alliance, Inc. (“CIBA”) sells insurance policies. The Association requested a quote for property insurance from Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. (B&W), which obtained a quote from CIBA with a wind/hail deductible of “$50,000 per location per occurrence”. The issued policy contained what the Association claimed was a different deductible, leading to a significant financial impact on the Association when their property suffered damage from wind and hail.
In Lodges at Oakparke Estates Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Burns & Wilcox, Ltd., et al., No. 24-cv-1682 (ECT/SGE), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (March 5, 2025) resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
The Association requested a quote for property insurance from Burns & Wilcox, Ltd. (B&W), which obtained a quote from CIBA with a wind/hail deductible of a minimum of “$50,000 per location per occurrence”.
The Association sued for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against B&W and sought reformation of the insurance policy as an equitable remedy. The Association filed a motion to amend its Complaint to add claims of unjust enrichment and negligence against CIBA.
The Association instructed B&W to bind coverage with CIBA consistent with the quote. CIBA then issued a policy containing a wind/hail deductible that included a percentage deductible not in the quote. CIBA’s issued policy stated that the deductible would be “FIVE PER CENT (5%) of the total insurable values, subject to a minimum of $50,000 per location per occurrence.” The Association only relied on the per location per occurrence deductible.
After the policy came into effect the Association’s property suffered damage from wind and hail. CIBA’s claims adjusting group determined the replacement cost value was $1,446,736.43.
Under what the Association contended was the quoted policy the Association’s deductible would have been $600,000.00. According to the issued policy, however, the Association must pay the entire repair cost because the adjusted value did not exceed the purported 5% deductible, or approximately $1,546,766.00.
The Association sought reformation of the insurance policy as an equitable remedy. The court granted the motion for the unjust enrichment claim but denied it for the negligence claim, as the Proposed Amended Complaint failed to allege that CIBA owed a duty of care.
ANALYSIS
Although courts should freely give leave to amend pleadings when justice so requires, changing a deadline in the scheduling order after the deadline has passed requires a good cause showing. Because there are no allegations of bad faith, dilatory motive, undue delay, or resulting prejudice, the Court granted the motion as it relates to the Association’s proposed unjust enrichment claim.
The Association and CIBA were two parties to an arm’s length transaction, and Minnesota law does not recognize a duty of care in such situations. The Proposed Amended Complaint did not allege any facts giving rise to a special relationship that imposes a common law duty on CIBA. Because the Association failed to allege facts giving rise to a duty, allowing amendment of the pleadings to add a negligence claim would be futile.
The Motion was DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim for negligence.
ZALMA OPINION
Purchasing a major insurance policy protecting valuable and extensive property is a difficult task that takes serious consideration by the insured who must read the quotation for insurance carefully. The insurer, CIBA, issued the quote and a policy with two different deductibles which exceed the actual replacement cost that the insured have considered before it agreed to acquire the policy.
(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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
