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.
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Montana County Attorney Admits to Insurance Fraud & Is Only Suspended from Practice for 60 Days
Post 5251
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnBaCjmv, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gfpVsyAd and at https://lnkd.in/gC73Nd8z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
A Lawyer Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Pleas to a Lower Charge Only Suspended
In The Matter Of: Naomi R. Leisz, Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (December 23, 2025) the Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed a formal disciplinary complaint with the Commission on Practice (Commission) against Montana attorney Naomi R. Leisz.
On September 25, 2025, Leisz tendered a conditional admission and affidavit of consent. Leisz acknowledged the material facts of the complaint were true and she had violated the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged by ODC.
ADMISSIONS
Leisz admitted that in April 2022, her minor son was involved in a car accident in which he hit a power pole. Leisz’s son ...
Insurer’s Exclusion for Claims of Assault & Battery is Effective
Post 5250
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBzt2vw9, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gEBBE-e6 and at https://lnkd.in/gk7EcVn9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Bar Fight With Security is an Excluded Assault & Battery
In The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. Mainline Private Security, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 24-3871, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (December 16, 2025) two violent attacks occurred in Philadelphia involving young men, Eric Pope (who died) and Rishabh Abhyankar (who suffered catastrophic injuries). Both incidents involved security guards provided by Mainline Private Security, LLC (“Mainline”) at local bars. The estates of the victims sued the attackers, the bars, and Mainline for negligence and assault/battery. The insurer exhausted a special limit and then denied defense or indemnity to Mainline Private Security.
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mainline had purchased a commercial ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
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/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
