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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
