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
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 ...
Blockchain Fraud Detection Loses Protection
Posted on October 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
John Earl Madden (April 10, 1936 – December 28, 2021) was an American Professional Football Coach and Sports Commentator in the National Football League Seeking Patent & Trademark Protection
BLOCKCHAIN FRAUD
Mr. Madden was more than football. He was working to establish a program called “Fraud Protection Systems, Methods, and Computer Programs for Blockchain Financial Transactions.”
In Ex parte John Madden, Appeal 2026-001497, Application 18/495,506, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (October 14, 2026)
The Examiner rejected claims several numbered claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
THE LAW
Section 101 makes patentable any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are implicitly excluded.
THE PATENT TRIAL AND ...
Sovereign Immunity Defeats Suit Against Police Officers
Post 4866
Posted on October 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Chad Lightfoot, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 26-434, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (October 9, 2026) Chad Lightfoot was involved in an Orleans Parish automobile accident in 2011 and filed claims with several insurers, including Progressive.
After a related civil dispute, Progressive counsel allegedly submitted a false affidavit stating that Lightfoot had fraudulently received a $50,000 payment. A New Orleans police detective relied on the affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant, and Louisiana State Police Lieutenant Alan Arcana allegedly reported that Lightfoot had received the payment. Lightfoot was arrested in 2015 and charged with theft, insurance fraud, and perjury.
Plaintiffs alleged that no record of the payment existed and that the criminal charges were dismissed on October 15, 2024.
Lightfoot and Geralyn Hawkins filed suit in October 2025 and ...
A Suit Filed Before the Claim Exists is Fatal
Post 4870
Posted on October 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Louis Briggs v. Shaun Wimberly; Somerset Services, Inc.; And Wimberly & Associates, PLLC, and Louis Briggs v. Shaun Wimberly And Wimberly & Associates, PLLC Nos. 2024-CA-1471-MR, 2025-CA-1366-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 9, 2026) Louis Briggs was arrested in 2014 after an incident with police and charged with several offenses, including third-degree assault.
Probable cause was found and an indictment was returned, but the charges were eventually dismissed. His attorney, Shaun Wimberly, then filed a federal civil rights suit for Briggs in a United States district court, which also asserted state-law claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Briggs blamed Wimberly for the result, fired him, and appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
While the federal appeal was pending, Briggs filed a legal malpractice action against Wimberly in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The Sixth ...
