Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 07, 2025
Fairly Debatable Attempt to Rescind Not Bad Faith

Rescission of Life Insurance Policy Fails
Post 5039

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gdW5iHgV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

USAA Life Insurance Company’s moved the USDC Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike.

In Ronda G. Williams v. USAA Life Insurance Company, No. 1:24-cv-00301-BLW, United States District Court, D. Idaho (April 1, 2025) the USDC eliminated the bad faith cause of action and allowed the breach of contract case.

BACKGROUND

Ronda Williams alleged her husband, Burton Williams, applied for a 20-year term life insurance policy for $750,000.00 from USAA on December 1, 2021. Shortly thereafter, USAA issued a life insurance policy with an effective date of February 15, 2022. As a part of his application, Mr. Williams signed an agreement that he would “.. .notify USAA Life Insurance Company if, after signing the statement but before the delivery of the policy, I seek medical consultation for any reason…”

Mrs. Williams alleged that Mr. Williams received a neurological exam in January 2022 after feeling lightheaded and dizzy at the gym. The exam was benign, he was treated for dehydration and sent home. He then followed up with his primary care physician on February 2, 2022, who did not have any concerns about his medical condition but scheduled an MRI for February 17, 2022. On February 18, 2022, Mr. Williams received the results of the MRI, which indicated he had a brain tumor.

About a year later, in June 2023, Mr. Williams died.

Mrs. Williams, as the beneficiary, notified USAA of his death and made a claim on his insurance policy. On December 26, 2023, USAA sent Mrs. Williams a letter stating that it was rescinding the insurance policy from the date of inception based upon material misrepresentations made in Mr. Williams’ application. Mrs. Williams sued. Mrs. Williams filed her Third Amended Complaint alleging a single claim for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. USAA again moved to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim.

ANALYSIS

Breach of Contract Claim.

Mrs. Williams alleged USAA breached its contract when it failed to pay her the amount due under the life insurance policy. USAA argued that Mrs. Williams cannot show any breach of contract because it rescinded the life insurance policy within the two-year statutory contestability period.

The rescission fell within the two-year contestability period.

Even considering USAA’s affirmative defense, it does not require dismissal of Mrs. Williams’ complaint at this stage of the litigation. To rescind the policy, USAA would first need to prove Mr. Williams made an incorrect statement on his application. Then the company would have to prove it would not have issued the policy had it known the “true facts.”

USAA contends Mr. Williams’ responses to several questions on his application were incorrect. Mr. Williams answered “no” to each of these questions. While these responses may have been rendered inaccurate in light of his hospital visit and follow up visit with his primary care provider, these inaccuracies do not necessarily mean rescission is appropriate.

To rescind, USAA must show it would not have issued the policy had the statements been accurate. There is nothing on the face of the Third Amended Complaint or in the material incorporated by reference that permits the Court to conclude on a motion to dismiss that the misrepresentations were material.

An insurer may establish materiality as a matter of law by presenting documentation concerning its underwriting practices. Absent similarly conclusive facts in the Third Amended Complaint or incorporated by reference, the Court cannot conclude the misrepresentations, as a matter of law, were material. Accordingly, USAA’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim is denied.

Insurance Bad Faith Claim.

To demonstrate bad faith under Idaho law, a plaintiff must show:

1. the insurer intentionally and unreasonably denied or withheld payment;
2. the claim was not fairly debatable;
3. the denial or failure to pay was not the result of a good faith mistake; and
4. the resulting harm is not fully compensable by contract damages.

An insurer does not act in bad faith by challenging the validity of a “fairly debatable” claim, or when delay results from honest mistakes.

Mrs. Williams did not adequately allege an insurance bad faith claim. The denial of an insurance claim and a claimant’s disagreement with the decision does not automatically equate to bad faith. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mrs. Williams’s bad faith claim.

The Court will dismiss the bad faith insurance claim without leave to amend.

ZALMA OPINION

Rescission is an equitable remedy that requires, rather than a money judgment, fairness. If an insurance contract is acquired by a material misrepresentation or the concealment of a material fact, the court will order the contract rescinded and both parties would be placed in the same position they were in before the contract was issued. USAA failed to include in its motion to dismiss evidence that established that the misrepresentations were material. The court dismissed the bad faith cause of action because the issue was fairly debatable and at trial USAA may bring the underwriters to prove materiality and if they don’t they will pay Mrs. Williams.

(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

00:09:43
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief

Post number 5357

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed

In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.

FACTS

Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders

All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.

Post number 5348

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.

In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims

Post number 5347

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer

In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In ...

00:08:02
July 03, 2026
Buying Insurance After the Accident is Fraud

It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception

Post number 5386

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming

In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.

That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.

The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals