It is the Obligation of an Insured to Prove his Claim
Post 5084
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gA_JbKCA and at https://lnkd.in/gdCQcUYJ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Theft Claim Insufficient to Allow Total Gutting of Structure
Posted on May 28, 2025 by Barry Zalma
In Seviiri Bunjo v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, No. 1-24-1010, 2025 IL App (1st) 241010-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division (May 19, 2025), an attempt to gain payment to remodel building failed when the insurer refused to pay for non-covered claims.
Seviiri Bunjo sued for declaratory judgment against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) after a break-in at his property in Chicago on May 31, 2019. Bunjo sought additional insurance proceeds for incident-related losses and lost rental income. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, finding that Bunjo failed to show the damages estimate was inaccurate or that State Farm violated the terms of the insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The court found that Bunjo’s contractor, Sean Rogers, provided an estimate for a full gut rehab of the property rather than just for damages from the break-in. Additionally, Bunjo’s public adjuster, Vito Misceo, admitted that he could not accurately assess the damages because the property had already been gutted.
Regarding lost rental income, the court noted that Bunjo was under a court order prohibiting him from renting, using, leasing, or occupying the property at the time of the break-in. Therefore, State Farm was not obligated to pay for lost rents or additional living expenses.
In summary, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of State Farm, finding no merit in Bunjo’s arguments. The circuit court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer where the insured failed to show the damages estimate was inaccurate or that the insurer violated the terms of the insurance policy.
State Farm met its initial burden of production by establishing that plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to prove his claim. This shifted the burden of proof to plaintiff and the court found that “plaintiff *** failed to bring forward any additional evidence regarding the extent of the initial Incident-related losses,” and therefore, “there is no genuine issue of material fact on the extent of initial losses.”
ANALYSIS
Summary judgment should be granted when, as here, the pleadings, admissions on file, depositions and any affidavits, construed strictly against the moving party, reveal no genuine issue of material fact so that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Because an insurance policy is a contract, the court applies general rules of contract interpretation to the policy. If the words employed in the contract are clear and unambiguous, as is the case here, they must be given their plain, ordinary and popular meaning
Plaintiff was planning to do a full gut rehab of the Property before the break-in occurred. What’s more, plaintiff failed to include appropriate citations to his arguments on these issues on appeal. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, concluding that Bunjo did not present sufficient evidence to prove his claim.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance is a contract that is designed to indemnify an insured for losses due to an insured against anYfortuitous event. In this case a burglary did some damage to the structure but did not destroy the structure or make it impossible to repair. Rather than seek repair only of the damage caused by the thieves Bunjo sought to have State Farm pay for what he planned before the loss, a full gutting of the property and reconstruction. The court felt it sufficient to dismiss the suit but, in my opinion, the trial court or the appellate court should have reported Bunjo to the Department of Justice for attempted insurance fraud.
(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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
