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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
