Oregon Concludes Requirement that Insured Occupy Residence Premises Only Applies to Inception of Policy
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmfMRxdE, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g54q4gwR and at https://lnkd.in/gJYJdHPG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 50,000 posts.
Post 5040
Ambiguity Makes Condition Unenforceable
In John Durkheimer and Karen Durkheimer v. Safeco Insurance Company Of Illinois, No. 3:24-cv-1333-SB, United States District Court, D. Oregon (April 1, 2025)
John and Karen Durkheimer (“Durkheimers”) sued Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”), alleging claims for breach of insurance contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence per se. The Durkheimers’ residence in southwest Portland suffered significant water damage due to burst water pipes. The Durkheimers submitted an insurance claim to Safeco, the issuer of their homeowner’s insurance policy (“the Policy”). Although Safeco provided partial payment, the Durkheimers claimed additional outstanding damages. Safeco asserted, as its sixth affirmative defense, that “[t]he Policy limits dwelling coverage to the ‘Residence Premises’ . . . [and t]o the extent that [the Durkheimers] did not reside at the Premises when the Loss occurred, the Policy does not cover damage sustained to the Property.” The Durkheimers moved to strike this affirmative defense on the ground that it is insufficient as a matter of law.
The Court agreed with the Durkheimers. The phrase “owned and occupied” is merely a “description” of the property at the time the policyholder obtained insurance.
The USDC held that the insured’s lease of their residence to a third party did not forfeit coverage under a homeowner’s policy for “residence premises” where the policy defined that term as “where you reside.” The court explained that the phrase “where you reside” “could be grammatically interpreted to modify only ‘part of any other building,’ not ‘family dwelling.’”
When a policy leads to multiple reasonable interpretations, that policy does not “explicitly and unambiguously” terminate a homeowner’s policy. Even if a policy is phrased in a way that covers only family dwellings where a policyholder resides, that residence requirement applies to when the policy was first purchased, and not when a claim was filed.
The Durkheimers’ insurance policy did not specifically and unequivocally put them on notice that their coverage would end if they did not reside in the house in question and granted the Durkheimers’ motion to strike.
The Court concluded that the policy is ambiguous, and that therefore, the Durkheimers’ policy did not explicitly put them on notice that they needed to reside at the property to maintain coverage and the Court granted the Durkheimers’ motion to strike.
ZALMA OPINION
Most states have interpreted the fact that a homeowners policy requires an insured to reside in the dwelling for coverage to apply so, if the insured moves out during the policy term, the coverage is void unless the insured advises the insurer and modifies the policy to tenant occupied and pays any additional premium. The USDC, applying Oregon law found the language to be ambiguous and, therefore, reject the defense that the Durkheimers’ did not reside in the residence premises at the time of the loss but did reside there when the policy was issued. Since the weight of authority across the country is different there is a possibility that an appeal will move forward and a different result will occur.
(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
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
