A Court Will Never Accept Legal Conclusions in a Suit
Post 5115
A Contract Cannot Legally Bind A Person Or Entity Which Is Not A Party To The Contract.
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g3aY9Vdc and at https://lnkd.in/gnYgSbQW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
The plaintiff, Nataly Gasova, claimed a breach of contract related to an insurance policy which IISS sold to her. IISS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing inter alia that there was no contract between these parties. Gasova moved to amend her complaint to abandon her breach of contract claim and instead bring claims related to the advertising and sale of the insurance policy.
In Nataly V. Gasova v. Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions, Civ. No. 1:24-CV-2279, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 26, 2025) Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions (“IISS”) moved the court to dismiss the suit.
Background
On November 4, 2023, Gasova was involved in an automobile accident while working as a rideshare driver. Gasova sued IISS, Uber Technologies Inc., and Farmers Insurance Exchange, alleging all three defendants were liable for a failure to make payments due to Gasova under the policy IISS sold to her, as well as alleging fraud. Gasova amended her complaint, dismissed Uber and Farmers, naming IISS as the sole defendant and alleging breach of contract.
On December 4, 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein Gasova released all claims against IISS related to the car accident underlying this case. On December 31, 2024, IISS removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On January 7, 2025, IISS moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim arguing, inter alia, that the release foreclosed Gasova’s pursuit of her claims in the second amended complaint and that the complaint failed to state a claim as it did not establish there was a breach of contract.
DISCUSSION
Motion to Dismiss – Standard of Review
A court is not required to accept legal conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. A complaint has to show an entitlement with its facts. Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief.
The Motion to Dismiss Will be Granted.
It is axiomatic that a contract cannot legally bind a person or entity which is not a party to the contract. Because Gasova has not alleged facts showing there was a contract between the parties, the USDC concluded she has failed to state a claim.
Gasova’s theory of liability relies primarily on IISS’s inaction, alleging that IISS failed to inform her about certain elements of the policy, which is inadequate to establish a viable cause of action.
The USDC concluded there is no contract between these parties, and that permitting Gasova’s desired amendment would be futile. Therefore, IISS’s motion to dismiss was granted and it denied Gasova’s motion to amend.
ZALMA OPINION
Some people wrongly believe that it is easy to sue an insurance company and become wealthy from the attempt. This case establishes that the belief if unfounded. Insurers fight back and refuse to pay a suit that fails to state a cause of action sufficient to allow the case to go to trial. Gasova should have stopped when she settled.
(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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
