Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119
Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.
KEY POINTS
1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to indemnify William Mitchell, as this depends on facts determined by the trier of fact.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENTS
The standard for evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
The Defendants argued that the California case (for which Plaintiff seeks defense and indemnity) asserts theories of liability that show cause of injury not entirely arising out of the controlled substances that killed the plaintiff in the California case, invoking the concurrent cause doctrine.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
California Case Allegations
The court found that all theories of liability in the California case are anchored in the decedent’s drug overdose, and no other act created a substantial part from a risk covered by the policy.
Under Tennessee law, the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct. The duty to defend is a question of law that can be decided at the summary judgment stage. On other hand, the duty to defend is triggered only after a fact finder determines the true facts and these facts are within a policy’s coverage.
An insurer’s duty to defend is separate and distinct from the insurer’s obligation to pay claims under the policy. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. An insurer may not properly refuse to defend an action against its insured unless it is plain from the face of the complaint that the allegations fail to state facts that bring the case within or potentially within the policy’s coverage.
The Court can find no duty to defend if it is plain from the face of the complaint and the attachments thereto that the allegations fail to state facts that bring the case within or potentially within the policy’s coverage.
The concurrent cause doctrine looks to whether coverage should apply when the independent causes – one addressed by an exclusion and the other not – caused the damages or injury and will allow for coverage if the nonexcluded act was a substantial causal factor.
The claims against William Mitchell in the California case are couched in terms of different liability theories – negligence, duty to warn, and violation of the California Drug Dealer Liability Act – but each theory of liability is anchored in the decedent’s drug overdose.
Exclusion Clause
The court analyzed the specific exclusion in the insurance policy, which excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer, or possession of controlled substances.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in that it has no duty to defend William Mitchell against the claims in the California lawsuit.
However, because the duty to indemnify is based on facts determined by the trier of fact and not merely the facts alleged in the complaint – as is the case of the duty to defend – the Court could not conclude at whether Plaintiff has a duty to indemnify William Mitchell relating to the California case. Therefore, the motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied as to the issue of the duty to indemnify.
ZALMA OPINION
The concurrent cause doctrine, created in the courts of the state of California allows that if one cause of loss is excluded and another cause of loss is not excluded, the loss must be covered and defense provided to the insured. In this case there were multiple causes of the injury to the California plaintiff but all of those causes related to the excluded cause, the drug overdose. The USDC in Tennessee provided a Solomon like decision denying defense but leaving open the potential for Indemnity.
(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.
Payment of Appraisal Award Defeats Claim of Bad Faith
Post 5163
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dNpKKcYx, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dNgwRP8q and at https://lnkd.in/dA9dvd-D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Hurricane Damage to Dwelling Established by Appraisal Award
In Homeowners Of America Insurance Company v. Emilio Menchaca, No. 01-23-00633-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (July 31, 2025) after a hurricane Homeowners of America Insurance Company (“HAIC”) estimated that the cost of covered repair to Menchaca’s house was $3,688.54, which was less than his deductible, and therefore no payment would be made.
FACTS
After Menchaca retained counsel HAIC advised that, under the terms of the policy, Menchaca was required to first invoke the appraisal process prior to filing suit, and that HAIC reserved the right to request that Menchaca and any adjuster hired on his behalf submit to an Examination Under Oath (“EUO”).
On August 23, 2018, Menchaca’s counsel ...
The Quality of Insurance Fraud Perpetrators is Declining
Post 5162
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gu5JuZCD, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ghayiupt and at https://lnkd.in/gAxTeR8w, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Insured Admits Fake Theft and Shows Allegedly Stolen Item to Insurance Investigator
Christie Paolino an investigator for Westfield Insurance Company testified that appellant Matthew McGrath reported the theft of his vehicle and equipment to Westfield, including the VIN for the GMC truck. Paolino met with McGrath at his residence in Cleveland. She asked if they could move to a quieter spot such as the backyard. As they walked up the driveway towards the backyard, Paolino noticed “two snowplows sitting in the driveway” and recognized one as the snowplow “that he had reported stolen.” She asked appellant “if that was, in fact, the snowplow,” and he admitting to the falsity of his claim he responded that it was.
In STATE OF OHIO v. MATTHEW MCGRATH, ...
Selling Office of US Senator is an Unforgivable Crime
Post 5161
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvGJ2nBW and at https://lnkd.in/gxw-mmBB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Claim of Innocence Unbelievable
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Nadine Menendez, along with then-Senator Robert Menendez, Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes, was indicted for participating in a bribery scheme. The charges included conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services wire fraud, extortion under color of official right, and obstruction of justice. Both were found guilty at trial. Mrs. Menendez moved to overturn the jury verdict.
In UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NADINE MENENDEZ, No. (S4) 23-Cr-490 (SHS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (July 31, 2025) the USDC upheld the convictions after a lengthy analysis of issues raised by Ms. Menendez.
KEY POINTS
-
Bribery and Corruption:
The evidence presented was sufficient to prove a corrupt quid pro quo involving official ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
