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 ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
