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:
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...
