Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two motions for entry of a default judgment filed by Foremost against Price and Steele respectively.
BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2023, Brown sued Price and Steele asserting claims of negligence and negligence per se. Brown alleged that she was outside of her residence and at the same time, Price was outside of the property he rents from Steele with his dog Miami. Without provocation, Miami suddenly got loose and attacked Brown, causing her injuries.
Miami had a bad history by previously getting loose and attacking humans without provocation. Brown contended that Steele knew that Miami was dangerous because when Steele collects rent from Price, he does not enter the residence due to the danger of Miami’s presence.
After the incident, the Larksville police cited Price for violations of the Pennsylvania Dog Law and Larksville Borough Ordinances.
THE INSURANCE
Foremost insured Steele under the Dwelling Fire One Policy Vacant or Unoccupied, policy number 381-0091679411-07. Under the Foremost policy, Foremost is required to insure Steele for accidents, including bodily injuries to other persons and medical costs related thereto as well as property damage, at covered premises. One such covered premise is the property that Defendant Price rented from Defendant Steele when the incident leading to the Brown Litigation occurred.
The Foremost policy includes certain exclusions including one that explicitly excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage that results from the actions that occur on insured premises of (1) any animal which the insured (or the insured’s family member or employee) is aware has a prior history of biting or attacking humans or other animals or (2) any dog that is deemed dangerous as defined by Pennsylvania Public Law 784, as amended.
DISCUSSION
Foremost asserted that there was no coverage available to Steele because the exclusions related to dangerous animals apply because Steele was aware of Miami’s history of attacking and biting people. Consequently, Foremost alleged that Steele is not entitled to coverage related to the Brown Litigation and the counsel it has thus far provided to Steele should be permitted to withdraw.
Foremost requests a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele or Price as a result of pending state court litigation. According to Pennsylvania law, an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify an insured in litigation is triggered by the language and factual allegations in the underlying complaint.
It should be, and was, obvious that when the clear and unambiguous terms of the policy do not provide for off-site injuries and when the injuries which occurred in this case occurred off-site, an insurer owes no duty to defend or indemnify the insured.
The Brown Complaint filed against Steele and Price in state court alleges Brown was outside of her residence when Price was outside of the property he rents from Steele with Miami. On the face of the complaint, the injuries took place at a place which is not an insured premise, as defined by the Foremost policy.
Therefore, Steele and Price are not entitled to defense or indemnification by Foremost. Given Steele and Price’s repeated failures to answer, respond or defend this case, the Court granted Foremost’s motions and entered declaratory judgments in favor of Foremost against Steele and Price, providing that Foremost has no duty or obligation to defend or indemnify Steele or Price.
ZALMA OPINION
When the insured took his vicious dog off his premises and it viciously attacked a woman causing serious injuries she sued the insured. Foremost, the dog owner’s insurer obtained an order that it need not defend or indemnify the insured because a clear and unambiguous exclusion excluded coverage for dog bites off premises. Insurance companies that write clear and unambiguous policies are entitled to seek court orders to enforce the language of their policy.
(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.
Breach of Contract is not a Tort
It Doesn’t Pay to Over Charge a Suit Against an Insurer
Post 5116
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geM76MRe, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRWJRk9u and at https://lnkd.in/gVfRpfA5, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
In Kole Westwood and Keeley Westwood v. The Travelers Home And Marine Insurance Company and Aaron Harrigfeld, No. 2:24-cv-00719-JNP-DBP, United States District Court, D. Utah (June 30, 2025) the case against the engineer failed completely and the case against Travelers was limited to the claim that the insurance contract was breached.
CASE BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Kole and Keeley Westwood are homeowners in Utah whose home was damaged in a severe winter storm. The roof buckled under the weight of snow and ice, causing water damage to the house.
Their insurer, Travelers, denied their claim based on an engineering inspection report prepared by Defendant Aaron Harrigfeld. The Westwoods allege that the report contained false representations about the history ...
Motions in Limine Used to Limit Trial and Expert Testimony
Post 5116
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/ghvqp4Qi and at https://lnkd.in/gjsi8yGe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Trial Judge Must Limit Experts to Testimony that will Aid the Jury
The case brought by Plaintiff Gary Cawley and others against American Financial Security Life Insurance Company and others was before United States District Court for the District of Arizona’s Honorable Steven P. Logan, United States District Judge.
In Gary Cawley, et al. v. American Financial Security Life Insurance Company, et al., No. CV-22-00823-PHX-SPL, United States District Court, D. Arizona (July 2, 2025) Judge Logan resolved dozens of motions in limine filed by the parties.
Motions in Limine
Judge Logan issued orders relating to various motions in limine filed by both Plaintiffs and Defendant recognizing that a motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit testimony or evidence in a particular area and the practice has developed ...
A Court Will Never Accept Legal Conclusions in a Suit
Post 5115
A Contract Cannot Legally Bind A Person Or Entity Which Is Not A Party To The Contract.
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g3aY9Vdc and at https://lnkd.in/gnYgSbQW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
The plaintiff, Nataly Gasova, claimed a breach of contract related to an insurance policy which IISS sold to her. IISS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing inter alia that there was no contract between these parties. Gasova moved to amend her complaint to abandon her breach of contract claim and instead bring claims related to the advertising and sale of the insurance policy.
In Nataly V. Gasova v. Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions, Civ. No. 1:24-CV-2279, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 26, 2025) Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions (“IISS”) moved the court to dismiss the suit.
Background
On November 4, 2023, Gasova was involved in an automobile accident while working as a rideshare driver. ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
