My Last Comment on Direct Physical Loss Requirement Again
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gtw9Z4hH, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gmJz_zfs and at https://lnkd.in/gjxwPfY3 and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Post 5096
In Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. Lexington Insurance Co., Wn.App. 2d, 566 P.3d 149 (2025), the Washington Court of Appeals held that COVID-19 does not trigger coverage under an “All Risk” policy that predicates coverage on “direct physical loss or damage” to property. Because the trial court’s ruling in this matter is contrary to Tulalip, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court ordering dismissal.
In The Board Of Regents Of The University Of Washington v. Employers Insurance Company Of Wausau, A Liberty Mutual Company, No. 86493-9-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 9, 2025) the question of direct physical loss claims as a result of the Covid Pandemic got resolved again.
THE POLICIES
The University of Washington (UW) obtained from Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (Wausau) “All Risk” insurance coverage for several of its properties. UW sought coverage after government orders relating to COVID-19 required temporary closures of those properties. The relevant policy provisions predicate coverage on “direct physical loss or damage.”
THE SUIT
Wausau denied coverage based on those policy provisions, UW filed a complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, bad faith, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Wausau filed a motion to dismiss the claims based on the policy provisions, and the trial court denied that motion.
ANALYSIS
Construction of an insurance policy is always a question of law. The Court of Appeals examined the policy to determine whether under the plain meaning of the contract there is coverage. If the policy’s language is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce the policy as written. Also, relevant here, the insured bears the burden of showing that coverage exists.
Thus, the issue is whether UW has alleged the required “direct physical loss or damage” to trigger coverage under the relevant policies for the COVID-19-related losses at issue.
The Court of Appeals rejected the arguments raised by UW for a similar loss of functionality argument in Tulalip because, the insureds in Tulalip maintained possession of the property, the property was still functional and able to be used, and the insureds were not prevented from entering the property.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the insureds’ deprivation was more akin to an abstract or intangible loss. An intangible loss is insufficient to establish direct physical loss or damage. The deprivation must still be caused by a physical impact to the property. The same reasoning and holding apply equally here because, as in Tulalip, UW’s allegations show it suffered an abstract or intangible loss as opposed to a physical loss.
The policies define a “covered loss” as “[a] loss to covered property caused by direct physical loss or damage insured by this Policy.” Thus, as in Tulalip, there must be direct physical loss or damage to property for UW to obtain coverage under the communicable disease coverage endorsements. Because UW has failed to allege such loss or damage the communicable disease coverage endorsements do not apply.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the Court of Appeals reject UW’s arguments regarding its entitlement to coverage under the policies at issue for the same reasons set forth in Tulalip. UW’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims fail on this basis. Because Tulalip is directly on point and fatal to UW’s coverage arguments, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for for dismissal.
ZALMA OPINION
About two years ago I proposed to never again write about Covid claims and the need to prove direct physical loss. For reasons I don’t understand parties continue to bring to court cases claiming direct physical loss that is really abstract and intangible losses. Just alleging direct physical loss where none exist wastes the time of the parties, the lawyers, the courts and the courts of appeal. Washington affirmed its precedent that should tell the people of the US to stop trying to make insurers provide a coverage it did not agree to provide.
(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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
