Breach of Contract is not a Tort
It Doesn’t Pay to Over Charge a Suit Against an Insurer
Post 5116
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geM76MRe, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRWJRk9u and at https://lnkd.in/gVfRpfA5, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
In Kole Westwood and Keeley Westwood v. The Travelers Home And Marine Insurance Company and Aaron Harrigfeld, No. 2:24-cv-00719-JNP-DBP, United States District Court, D. Utah (June 30, 2025) the case against the engineer failed completely and the case against Travelers was limited to the claim that the insurance contract was breached.
CASE BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Kole and Keeley Westwood are homeowners in Utah whose home was damaged in a severe winter storm. The roof buckled under the weight of snow and ice, causing water damage to the house.
Their insurer, Travelers, denied their claim based on an engineering inspection report prepared by Defendant Aaron Harrigfeld. The Westwoods allege that the report contained false representations about the history and condition of their roof.
LEGAL CLAIMS
The Westwoods filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment for the amount needed to restore their house to its pre-storm condition, along with various damages. Their complaint included two contract claims and three tort claims: negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud, and fraud. Mr. Harrigfeld moved to dismiss the three tort claims against him, and Travelers moved for judgment on the pleadings as to those same three claims.
COURT’S DECISION
The court granted both motions, dismissing the tort claims against Mr. Harrigfeld and Travelers. The court found that no party relied on the misrepresentations in Mr. Harrigfeld’s report, which is a necessary element for claims of negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The court also noted that the dispute is fundamentally about an alleged breach of contract, not tort misrepresentation.
REMAINING CLAIMS
All claims against Mr. Harrigfeld were dismissed, and Travelers prevailed on the tort claims against it. Only the contract claims against Travelers remain live.
ANALYSIS
Utah courts consider a claim for intentional misrepresentation as essentially a claim for fraud. As the court saw it, all theories suffer from a fatal defect: no one who received Mr. Harrigfeld’s flawed report – not Travelers, not the Westwoods – relied on the misrepresentations in that report. That is, no one took the misrepresentations about preexisting damage to be true and then suffered harm as a result of taking those misrepresentations as true.
To understand this defect, consider the elements of negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Under Utah law, negligent misrepresentation occurs when:
(1) a party carelessly or negligently makes a false representation expecting the other party to rely and act thereon,
(2) the [other party] actually relies on the statement, and
(3) [the other party] suffers a loss as a result of that reliance.
In addition, fraud requires a plaintiff to show:
(1) that a representation was made
(2) concerning a presently existing material fact
(3) which was false and
(4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, . . .
(5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it and
(6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity,
(7) did in fact rely upon it
(8) and was thereby induced to act
(9) to that party’s injury and damage.
The parties’ dispute here concerns Travelers’ purported obligation to pay the Westwoods’ claim – a subject matter already covered by their insurance contract laying out the conditions under which Travelers is and is not obligated to pay a claim. The suit was limited to the claim that Travelers breached its contract.
ZALMA OPINION
Whether an insurer owes a claim under an insurance policy is a question of contract, not tort, not fraud, only contract terms. The Westwoods took a simple contract suit and tried to expand it into a tort claim, a fraud claim, but did not have the facts to support the tort claims. If their loss is covered by the Travelers policy they will be paid and if not, their attempt to make it a big tort suit failed.
(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 ibrary – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
