Medicare Supplement Plan Properly Discontinued by City
Post 5108
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfHSn7nx, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-hkvd3h and at https://lnkd.in/gcN7BP5u, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
New York’s Highest Court Approves Change in Medicare Plan
The City of New York decided to discontinue its Medicare supplemental plan, Senior Care, and enroll all retirees in a custom-designed Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP) managed by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Petitioners, consisting of nine retirees and one organization, initiated legal proceedings to prevent the City from eliminating their existing health insurance plans. They argued that the City had repeatedly promised to provide and pay for a Medicare supplemental plan upon retirement, and that they relied on these promises when making financial, employment, and retirement decisions.
In the Matter of Robert Bentkowski, et al. v. City of New York, et al., 2025 NY Slip Op 03690, No. 57, New York Court of Appeals (June 18, 2025) ruled in favor of the city.
The Trial Court
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their cause of action under Administrative Code of the City of New York and the Appellate Division affirmed. The City appealed.
The primary issue before the Court of Appeals was whether petitioners were entitled to judgment on their promissory estoppel cause of action. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioners were not entitled to judgment on this cause of action, as they failed to establish the existence of a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life.
Promissory Estoppel:
1. The Court found that the Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) provided by the City were descriptive and for informational purposes only and did not constitute a clear and unambiguous promise of Medicare supplemental insurance coverage for life.
2. The affidavits submitted by the petitioners, including those from Lilliam Barrios-Paoli and hundreds of retirees, were based on the SPDs and did not establish a clear and unambiguous promise.
Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1):
The petitioners contended that the City was required to provide and pay for a Medicare supplemental plan under Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1). The Court rejected this contention, stating that the requirement prohibits the City from passing any portion of the cost up to the statutory cap on to its employees and retirees, but does not require the City to fund health insurance without the benefit of federal subsidies.
Conclusion:
The Court reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.
DISCUSSION
Respondents answered, arguing, among other things, that the City’s statements in the SPDs did not constitute “a clear and unambiguous forward-looking promise sufficient to support a promissory estoppel claim.” Furthermore, respondents stated that the Aetna MAP was the product of negotiation between the City, Aetna, and the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC), which represents over 100 municipal unions in the collective bargaining process. According to respondents, the Aetna MAP would allow the City to access federal subsidies, creating $500 million in savings to be allocated to a Health Benefits Stabilization Fund to provide sufficient reserves for future health benefits.
Any inference of a lifetime promise derived from the SPDs is even less plausible in light of the prefatory language employed therein and the mayoral cover letters. Because there is no clear and unambiguous promise in the SPDs, the affidavits of Barrios-Paoli and the hundreds of retirees likewise fail to establish the existence of such a promise.
The parties stipulated to the completeness of the record. On that record, petitioners failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish that the City’s decision to shift retirees to the Aetna MAP constitutes a diminution in retiree benefits or the City’s contributions for those benefits.
The order of the Appellate Division reversed with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.
ZALMA OPINION
Promises to provide health insurance coverage and Medicare Supplement Coverage must be clear and unambiguously to provide such services for the life of the employee or retired employee for a court to compel the city to keep the promises. The promises of coverage were not kept because they were not made to be a “forever benefit.” Shifting benefits from one program to another did not diminish the benefits promised.
(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.
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 ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
