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:
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...
