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
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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
