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.
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
