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
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
