Providing Temporary Housing to an Insured Who Incurred a Loss is Not Unlimited
Post 5081
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gu4QHBfh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKXwaPhQ and at https://lnkd.in/g7EzsBB8, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Insured as Lessee is Obligated to Pay Rent
Millar sued Anakka Hartwell, Liberty Insurance Corporation, and Temporary Housing, Inc. (THI) were sued after Hartwell, a policyholder of Liberty, failed to pay rent for a property Millar leased to her through THI. The court granted summary judgment in favor of THI and Liberty, dismissing Millar’s claims, and Millar appealed the decision .
In Joel Millar v. Anakka Hartwell, a Washington resident, Liberty Insurance Corporation, a foreign insurance corporation; and Temporary Housing, Inc. d/b/a CRS Temporary Housing, a foreign entity, No. 85876-9-I, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (May 19, 2025) resolved the dispute.
Case Overview
Incident and Claim:
In September 2018, Hartwell reported a water leak in her home and sought Additional Living Expense (ALE) coverage from Liberty for temporary housing. THI was appointed to assist Hartwell in finding temporary accommodation and placed Hartwell at a residence.
Temporary Housing Arrangement:
Liberty Insurance provides home insurance policies that include coverage for temporary housing after a covered loss. THI secured housing for Hartwell in a property owned by Millar, formalized through a Temporary Housing Confirmation. The lease was set from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2019, with options for extensions.
After the initial lease term, THI requested extensions, and Millar agreed. However, after confirming with Liberty that no further extensions would be granted, THI notified Millar that Hartwell was to vacate by November 8, 2019. Despite this, Hartwell remained in the property until December 2022, making some but not all rent payments.
Legal Proceedings
Millar’s lawsuit sought recovery of unpaid rent and included claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court found no valid contract between Millar and THI or Liberty that would obligate them to continue paying rent after the lease termination date .
Summary Judgment:
The court granted THI and Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Millar’s claims lacked sufficient evidence and that any agreement did not extend to indefinite rent payments.
Appeal:
Millar appealed the summary judgment, arguing genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of a contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
COURT’S CONCLUSIONS
The court concluded that:
1. The Confirmation did not establish a perpetual obligation for THI to pay rent beyond the specified lease period.
2. Millar acknowledged that the lease agreement was between himself and Hartwell, not involving THI or Liberty.
3. THI had provided the required notice before terminating payments, and thus, no breach occurred .
Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing all claims against THI and Liberty, thereby upholding the ruling that there was no enforceable contract obligating THI or Liberty to continue rent payments after the lease’s termination date.
ZALMA OPINION
Liberty, in accordance with its contract of insurance, found temporary housing for its insured while the damaged premises was repaired. It paid for a lease between the insured Hartwell and Millar for the period of reconstruction. The temporary lease expired and was extended with the agreement of Hartwell and Millar. Hartwell failed to pay all rent due so Millar sued the insurer with whom there was no contract. The good deeds of Liberty and THI arranging for the temporary housing was returned with a law suit even though they were not parties to the lease.
(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 ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
