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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
