Proof of Accidental Direct Physical Loss Shifts Burden to Insurer on an All Risk Policy
Post 5024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/d7YCfPXU, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dNcVk6jz and at https://lnkd.in/djHsdtZt, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Insured Must Prove Actual Loss Causing Peril to Claim on Named Peril Policy
In Mark Alan Barger, Jr.; Margie Barger v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 24-60178, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (March 7, 2025) the difference between the burden of proof needed for an “all risk” coverage and named peril coverage.
Mark Alan Barger, Jr., and Margie Barger (“the Bargers”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of their homeowners’ insurer, State Farm. The Bargers contended that the district court, in evaluating their insurance claim, erroneously assigned them the burden of proving that a specified “named peril,” or “covered event,” caused damage to their roof and necessitated its replacement.
FACTS
In June 2021, a storm in Greenwood, Mississippi, caused significant rainfall, leading to rainwater leaking through the Bargers’ roof and interior ceilings, causing damage to multiple rooms in their house. State Farm refused to cover the cost of replacing the entire roof, concluding that only nine wind-damaged shingles and a small area of roofing membrane were covered by the policy. The Bargers eventually paid for a new roof in March 2022 and subsequently sued State Farm for breach of contract.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, reasoning that the Bargers failed to prove that a covered event caused the additional damage.
ANALYSIS
Under Mississippi law, when an insured makes a claim under an “all-risk” coverage the insured (the Bargers) only needed to prove that an “accidental direct physical loss” occurred to their dwelling. Once established, the burden shifted to the insurer (State Farm) to prove that a policy exclusion applied.
State Farm maintained that the district court’s reference to Coverage B, rather than Coverage A, had no impact on the application of the burden of proof and was nothing more than a clerical error [that] did not affect the outcome of the case and should be disregarded as harmless.
The language of the “Coverage A-Dwelling” section of the Bargers’ State Farm policy unquestionably provided “all-risk” coverage, whereas the “Coverage B- Personal Property” section only covered property loss caused by certain specified perils the “named perils” coverage of “Coverage C-Personal Property.” The Bargers were required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “direct physical loss” to the property described in Coverage C was caused by wind.
The Fifth Circuit was convinced that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding causation to the Bargers, rather than to State Farm. The Fifth Circuit was not convinced that the error had no impact on the district court’s summary judgment decision and, therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling, vacated the dismissal of the Bargers’ breach of contract claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
ZALMA OPINION
The State Farm policy contained two different types of coverage: (1) an all risk policy for the structure and (2) a named peril coverage for the contents. The District Court erroneously applied the named peril coverage to the entire claim when it should have applied the “all risk” requirements to structure and named peril requirements to the contents. The Bargers fulfilled the all risk requirement but may not have fulfilled the named peril requirement for loss to their contents so the court reversed and returned the case to the District Court to rule on both aspects of 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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
