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
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...
