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.
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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
