Notice of Claim Later than 60 Days After Expiration is Too Late
Post 5089
Injury at Massage Causes Suit Against Therapist
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gziRzFV8, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gF4aYrQ2 and at https://lnkd.in/gqShuGs9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Hiscox Insurance Company (“Hiscox”) moved the USDC to Dismiss a suit for failure to state a claim because the insured reported its claim more than 60 days after expiration of the policy.
In Mluxe Williamsburg, LLC v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-00002, United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division (May 22, 2025) the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the operator of a massage spa franchise, entered into a commercial insurance agreement with Hiscox that provided liability insurance coverage from July 25, 2019, to July 25, 2020. On or about June 03, 2019, a customer alleged that one of Plaintiff’s employees engaged in tortious conduct, and the customer eventually sued on those allegations. Plaintiff made an insurance claim related to the incident, and Hiscox denied coverage.
According to the insurance contract Plaintiff was obligated to give Hiscox written notice of any claim “no later than 60 days after the end of the policy period.” In a letter denying Plaintiff’s claim, Hiscox explained that Plaintiff first reported the claim to Hiscox “on or about October 27, 2020 (94 days after policy expiration), [and therefore] the insuring agreement [was] not triggered and coverage under the Professional Liability Coverage Part [was] unfortunately precluded.”
Plaintiff sued asserting that Hiscox’s erroneous and vexatious refusal to provide coverage under the applicable policy, without cause or excuse, has cost Plaintiff significantly.
ANALYSIS
Hiscox argued the vexatious-refusal claim failed because Plaintiff did not allege that it satisfied its obligations under the applicable insurance agreement. More specifically, the insurance agreement required Plaintiff to notify Hiscox of its claim before September 23, 2020, and according to the Complaint, Plaintiff did not do so.
Because the insurance coverage was never triggered by timely notice, Hiscox argued that its refusal to pay cannot be considered vexatious under the facts alleged, and therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In response Hiscox contended that the purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. To withstand Hiscox’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, which, when accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.
A vexatious-refusal claim ultimately requires Plaintiff to prove:
1. the existence of the insurance policy;
2. the insurance company’s refusal to pay; and
3. such refusal was without reasonable cause or excuse.
The Court concluded a vexatious-refusal claim requires an allegation that the insurer’s refusal to be “without reasonable cause or excuse.” This element requires Plaintiff to show that it upheld its end of the bargain as set forth in the insurance agreement. Failing to allege as much in the complaint provides grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegation – general or otherwise – that Plaintiff complied with its obligations under the insurance contract at issue. A district court need not conjure up unpled allegations to save a complaint. Therefore, the Court granted Hiscox’s Motion to Dismiss.
The Court found for various other problems with the pleading and the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel, that the better course is to dismiss this entire matter without prejudice. Doing so will allow Plaintiff sufficient time to find and retain new counsel, preserve Plaintiff’s ability to file a new complaint that sufficiently states a claim upon which relief can be granted, and give Plaintiff another opportunity to adequately serve all the defendants named therein.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance law suits require a lawyer with knowledge of the minimal requirements of the law and the insurance contract. The complaint, as originally alleged, named a defendant who was not served, failed to allege a timely report of claim, and counsel withdrew before the motion was heard. By dismissing without prejudice the court gave the Plaintiff a second byte at the apple if it can find competent counsel to file a better suit. A trial court being kind to the Plaintiff.
(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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
