No Response to Motion Guarantees Loss
Post 5055
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g5VvTN9F, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtwxjXjK and at https://lnkd.in/gKpVWhWW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
In Great Little Minds Academy, LLC v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-1875, United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division (April 17, 2025) Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Atlantic”) moved for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Atlantic’s summary judgment evidence establishes that GLMA purchased a commercial lines insurance policy from Atlantic (“the policy”) that contained the following coverage exclusion (“the freeze exclusion”):
“2. We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any of the following: …
"g. Water, other liquids, powder or molten material that leaks or flows from plumbing, heating, air conditioning or other equipment (except fire protective systems) caused by or resulting from freezing, unless:
"(1) You do your best to maintain heat in the building or structure; or
"(2) You drain the equipment and shut off the supply if the heat is not maintained.”
When Winter Storm Uri struck Houston in February of 2021, the property insured by the policy suffered water damage after a pipe froze and burst. At the time of the storm, the insured property was vacant and had been vacant since its acquisition by GLMA in November of 2020. The insured property used two natural gas furnaces for central heating, but GLMA had not activated natural gas service for the insured property when Uri hit. Moreover, no one had shut off the water supply or drained the pipes at the insured property to prepare for the storm.
GLMA made a claim on the policy; and Atlantic denied the claim, citing the freeze exclusion. GLMA then sued.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The movant’s initial summary judgment burden depends on whether the movant will bear the burden of proof at trial. The movant may meet its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting the non-movant’s case. If the movant meets its initial burden, the non-movant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Atlantic’s evidence shows that the policy’s freeze exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for GLMA’s claim. On the record before the court, GLMA’s claim for breach of the insurance contract failed because the evidence conclusively showed that Atlantic did not breach the insurance contract.
In Texas insurance policies are construed in accordance with the same rules as contracts generally. If the insurer relies on a coverage exclusion to deny coverage, then it bears the burden of proving the applicability of the exclusion. Once the insurer proves that an exclusion applies, the burden shifts back to the insured to show that the claim falls within an exception to the exclusion. Coverage exclusions are construed narrowly, and any ambiguities are resolved in the insured’s favor.
Atlantic’s evidence showed that the water damage to GLMA’s insured property was caused by a frozen pipe that burst, triggering the freeze exclusion and shifting the burden to GLMA to prove that at least one of the two listed exceptions to the freeze exclusion applies. GLMA did not respond to Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment, so it consequently failed to carry its burden to create a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether one of the exceptions applies.
EXTRACONTRACTUAL CAUSES OF ACTION
GLMA’s numerous extracontractual causes of action also failed because the evidence showed that Atlantic did nothing more than promptly deny a claim that was not covered under the policy. The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies are contracts and motions for summary judgment are designed to save the courts and the litigants the time necessary to resolve their dispute by trial. Atlantic’s motion established that the loss resulted from frozen pipes that burst because the insured failed to heat the structure or drain the pipes. since there was no breach of contract there could be no claims for bad faith or extracontractual damages. GLMA failed to respond because there were no facts in its favor and the attempt to scare Atlantic into a settlement did not work.
(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 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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
