Statutory Penalties Must be Based on Evidence
Without Sufficient Evidence Penalty Assessment was Wrongful
Post 5114
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gdj-iHja and at https://lnkd.in/gxegeJPB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
When an appeal involved issues concerning the statutory penalties that apply to an insurer who knowingly or arbitrarily fails to pay a settlement to a third-party claimant within 30 days after a settlement agreement is reduced to writing The plaintiff, James Bridges, Sr., settled his claims arising from an automobile accident for $450,000. The trial court found that the settlement amount was not paid timely and applied La. R.S. 22:1892 to the penalty claim, imposing a penalty of $225,000 on one of the insurance company defendants. The insurers appealed.
In James Bridges, SS. v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Ace American Insurance Company, Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, East Jefferson Levee District, Deidrick Green, And Government Employees Insurance (In Its Capacity As Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Carrier, No. 24-CA-593, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit (July 2, 2025) dealt with, what appeared to be an excessive penalty for failing to deliver payment within 30 days of settlement.
Defendants’ Appeal
The defendants appealed the judgment, raising five assignments of error concerning the amount of the penalty and the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s proof.
Factual and Procedural Background
James Bridges alleged that he was injured in an automobile accident caused by Deidrick Green’s negligence. Bridges settled his claims with Green, Green’s employer, and their alleged liability insurers for $450,000. The settlement agreement required payment within 30 days of defendants’ receipt of signed release and final payment letter from CMS. He did not assert a claim for any damages sustained as a result of the late payment of the settlement funds.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court found that Plaintiff had met that burden for several reasons, all of which are clearly based on “facts” presented solely in the supporting and opposing memoranda or in argument of counsel. The trial court found that the failure to pay the settlement timely was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause and imposed a penalty of $225,000. The “facts,” which were not presented in the form of competent evidence caused the trial court to conclude that the delay could easily have been avoided, therefore it was not justified or reasonable and issued a judgment against Chubb for penalties of $225,000, or half of the total settlement amount, and $1,500 in attorney fees.
Trial Court Findings on Burden and Elements of Proof
The only evidence that was submitted at the penalty hearing was Bridges’ evidence proving that the conditions of the Settlement Agreement were met. Bridges did not introduce any evidence proving that the settlement payment was untimely or that the delay was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.
Lack of Evidence in this Record
Here, the trial court found that Bridges met his burden of proving that the settlement payment was untimely because “there was no dispute that there was no payment made within thirty days” after it became due. However, the record did not support the trial court’s conclusions that Bridges met his burden of proving facts establishing his entitlement to a penalty under § 1892.
Scope of Insurer’s Duty under § 1892(A)(2)
When the settlement includes property damage and medical expense claims along with other types of damage claims, as it did here, the amount of a penalty awarded under § 1892 may not exceed fifty percent of the amount of the settlement attributable to the property damage and reasonable medical expense claims, or $1,000, whichever is greater.
Analysis and Conclusion
The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s broader interpretation of the statute was contrary to the statute and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s directives.
Therefore, the trial court was ordered to render its decision based on the evidence properly before it for consideration and the interpretation of the penalty provisions in § 1892 set forth in the appellate decision.
ZALMA OPINION
There is usually no logical reason for an insurer to fail to pay an agreed upon settlement in more than 30 days from the settlement. For reasons never brought to the trial court or the appellate court, Chubb failed and by statute must be penalized for that failure. The trial court assessed an excessive penalty based on a lack of evidence from the parties so the trial court must reconsider based on actual evidence.
(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
Share this:
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...
