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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
