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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
