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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
