ACV, by Definition, Requires Depreciation from Replacement Cost
Post 5027
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUwdsX7z and at https://lnkd.in/gxmkMQcB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
This case is a putative class action concerning a commercial property insurance policy. Schoening Investment, LP alleges that The Cincinnati Casualty Company breached its insurance policy by undervaluing an actual cash value (ACV) payment for a covered partial structural loss to one of its properties in Schoening Investment, LP v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, No. 1:24-cv-137, United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division (March 13, 2025)
Key Allegations:
Schoening contended that the policy does not allow Cincinnati Casualty to deduct any amount for depreciation from the ACV payments due for partial structural losses. Schoening specifically challenged whether the insurer is entitled to deduct depreciation from such payments at all.
Legal Standard:
This putative class action concerned a commercial property insurance policy and a not uncommon grievance-an insured’s belief that its insurance policy entitles it to more money from its insurer than it received. Specifically, Plaintiff Schoening Investment, LP alleges (on behalf of itself and a putative class of insureds in Kentucky and Arizona) that Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company breached its insurance policy by undervaluing an actual cash value (ACV) payment it made to Schoening after Schoening suffered a covered partial structural loss to one of its properties. (By partial structural loss, the Court (and Schoening) means structural damage where estimated repair costs are lower than estimated replacement costs.)
The Court applied Kentucky law, which holds that the interpretation of unambiguous terms in an insurance policy is a matter of law. The Court concluded that Schoening’s depreciation-based challenge fail under the unambiguous policy terms.
Schoening contended that Cincinnati Casualty breached its contract in one very specific way. According to Schoening, the policy at issue does not allow Cincinnati Casualty to deduct any amount for depreciation from the otherwise-applicable ACV payments that would be due for partial structural losses. All Schoening challenges here is whether the insurer is entitled to deduct depreciation from such payments at all.
Cincinnati Casualty contended that the policy terms are sufficiently unambiguous on the depreciation issue that the Court should dismiss the suit. The Court agreed with Cincinnati Casualty.
THE VALUATION PROVISION
The Policy informs the reader that phrases in quotation marks (like “Actual Cash Value”) “have special meaning,” as set forth in “Section G. Definitions.” According to the Definitions Section, “‘Actual cash value’ means replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.”
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must present sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
THE UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY TERMS
Schoening asks the Court to manufacture a third valuation method for the Policy which it cannot do. Schoening seeks an ACV-based payment without a depreciation deduction that would mean that, even without selecting the optional replacement cost coverage, insureds covered under the Policy for full replacement cost or RCV.
Further, because the insureds who select the optional replacement-cost coverage can elect to receive ACV-based payments before making repairs Schoening’s reading of ACV would entitle them to receive full-replacementcost-based payments (i.e., without depreciation) without in fact making any repairs directly contravening the Policy wording.
All told, the Court found that, under the unambiguous Policy language, Cincinnati Casualty may deduct depreciation of materials from ACV calculations when evaluating partial structural loss claims.
The Optional Coverage under the Policy provides only two valuation methods-replacement cost and ACV. The latter, ACV, “means replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.” Replacement cost (RCV) is payment “without deduction for depreciation.” Unless and until an insured repairs or replaces a covered property, the replacement-cost based measure is not available to that insured.
Court’s Decision:
The Court agreed with Cincinnati Casualty that the policy unambiguously allows the insurer to deduct depreciation from ACV-based payments for partial structural losses. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Schoening’s complaint with prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
Schoening’s proposed reading would effectively grant insureds who did not pay for nor select the replacement cost coverage, a cost greater than the premium when RCV is not selected, an entitlement to replacement cost coverage, contrary to the policy terms. Schoening tried, by filing a class action, to change the wording of the policy and give the class a benefit for which they did not pay. The court refused to rewrite the policy whose terms and conditions the plaintiff class accepted when it acquired 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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
