see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gsxE-nPK and at https://lnkd.in/gGbQ9taM, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Fraudulent Joinder of Defendant to Avoid Federal Court Fails
Post 5113
It Never Pays to Sue a Party Who Did Nothing Wrong
The Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court, asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against State Farm. They also brought claims for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against Tyler McCall and the Tyler McCall Insurance Agency, Inc .
In Justin Gamble and Brittany Gamble v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, et al., No. CIV-25-396-R, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (July 2, 2025) State Farm removed the case to Federal Court and alleged that the McCall Agency was fraudulently joined to avoid removal.
KEY ISSUES
Fraudulent Joinder: State Farm removed the case, arguing that Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The standard for establishing fraudulent joinder is stringent, requiring either actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts or the inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.
Negligent Procurement of Insurance: Plaintiffs allege that the McCall Agency negligently failed to procure the insurance coverage they requested. However, the court found that the plaintiffs received the policy they requested and had sufficient coverage to replace their roof. Therefore, they cannot show that insurance was not procured as promised.
Constructive Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation: Plaintiffs also allege that the McCall Agency engaged in constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation by failing to disclose information about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics and the Hail Focus initiative. However, the court found no viable claim against the McCall Agency for these allegations .
State Farm removed the case, contending that Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined and their non-diverse citizenship may therefore be disregarded for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
The standard for establishing that a defendant has been fraudulently joined is a difficult one where the removing party must demonstrate either:
1. actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or
2. inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.
The standard to establish fraudulent joinder is more exacting than that for dismissing a claim and requires all factual disputes and all ambiguities in the controlling law to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. However, where a defendant’s non-liability is established as both a matter of fact and law, the defendant’s joinder is fraudulent and remand is appropriately refused.
The McCall Agency is the State Farm insurance agency that sold Plaintiffs the insurance policy. Oklahoma law recognizes that an insurance agent has a duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance.
An insurance agent can therefore be liable to the insured in negligence if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss. However, the scope of the agent’s duty to use reasonable care, skill, or diligence in the procurement of insurance is limited to needs disclosed by the insured. Agents do not have a duty to advise an insured with respect to his insurance needs and a general request for adequate protection and the like does not change this duty.
It is clear from Plaintiffs’ allegations and the record that Plaintiffs received the policy they requested and had sufficient coverage to replace their roof. No viable claim against McCall is available because Plaintiff’s claim against State Farm depends upon what damage her roof sustained, not the terms of her policy. As a result, Plaintiffs have no possibly viable claim against the McCall Agency for negligent procurement of insurance.
Any implied representations by the agent about the property’s condition or its eligibility for a replacement cost value policy were either true or not the cause of Plaintiffs’ losses.
Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined defendants, and their citizenship was therefore disregarded for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction.
The claims against Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were dismissed without prejudice and the case will remain in the USDC.
ZALMA OPINION
Some litigants do not like litigating in federal court, especially when they are suing insurers and will sue the agent to create a failure of jurisdiction in federal court. The Plaintiffs tried and failed because the agent did exactly what he was required to do. The case will be tried against State Farm in federal court.
(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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
