Statutory Immunity Defeats Suit for Wrongful Death Suit Against Police Officers
Post 5077
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gHWaCM5A and at https://lnkd.in/gEBvEyA2, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Posted on May 19, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Claim of Wrongful Death by Taser Fails
When a wrongful-death claim brought by Clayton Franklin, the administrator of his son Cody’s estate, against the City of Ozark and two police officers following Cody’s death in custody resulted in a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Franklin appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations did not apply and that the defendants were not immune from the claim.
In Clayton Franklin As Adminstrator For The Estate Of Cody J. Franklin v. City Of Ozark, Arkansas; Nathan Griffith; And Joseph Griffith, No. CV-24-331, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division IV, 2025 Ark.App. 308 (May 14, 2025) the trial court’s decision was affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1 Wrongful Death Claim: Clayton Franklin filed a wrongful-death claim after his son Cody died while detained, alleging negligence and excessive force by the officers.
2 Background of Incident: The case originated from events on May 10-11, 2016, when Cody was arrested after behaving erratically and subsequently died after being tased multiple times by officers.
3 Federal Court Proceedings: Initially, the case was filed in federal court, where claims against municipalities were dismissed, and the Eighth Circuit found the officers acted reasonably, granting them qualified immunity.
4 Circuit Court Rulings: The circuit court dismissed the second amended complaint, ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under Arkansas law.
5 Immunity and Negligence: The court held that the allegations of “willful and wanton” conduct did not rise to the level of intentional torts, thus granting immunity to the defendants as per Arkansas Code.
STATUTORY IMMUNITY
In issuing a blanket ruling, as the circuit court did here, a circuit court is deemed to have accepted all arguments advanced by the prevailing party. The circuit court therefore accepted appellees’ arguments that the second amended complaint should be dismissed because the statute of limitations barred appellant’s claims and because appellees were entitled to statutory immunity under Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-9-301.
ANALYSIS
An affidavit stating that there is no general-liability coverage establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The mayor’s affidavit sufficiently established that the City did not possess general-liability insurance at the time of the incident to cover appellant’s claims and immunity of the officers was established.
The Court of Appeals concluded that circuit court did not err in dismissing the second amended complaint after finding that appellees were immune to appellant’s wrongful-death claims as alleged, it is unnecessary for the Court of Apeals to address the circuit court’s alternative basis for dismissal.
ZALMA OPINION
This is essentially a sovereign immunity case where, if there is no insurance available for negligent conduct of police officers, the city and its officers are immune from suit unless the governmental entity has insurance to pay for losses like those resulting from the death of Cody.
(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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
