Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
July 29, 2025
Corporate Owners are not Innocent Co-Insureds

Arson by Insured’s Management Voids Coverage

Post 5156

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwkA76x5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBekGhfK and at https://lnkd.in/gwReRCKz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

Corporate Owners are not Innocent Co-Insureds

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwkA76x5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gBekGhfK and at https://lnkd.in/gwReRCKz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

Arson by Insured’s Management Voids Coverage

Post 5156

Arson for Profit by Corporate Entity Management Voids Policy

Following a fire that destroyed The Press Bar and Parlor in St. Cloud, Minnesota the insurer denied coverage after its determination that Andrew Welsh – a controlling officer of the insured intentionally set the fire and submitted a false proof of loss.

In Timeless Bar, Inc., doing business as The Press Bar and Parlor; Horseshoe Club, LLC; Jessie Welsh v. Illinois Casualty Company, No. 24-2245, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit (July 22, 2025)

BACKGROUND

In 2016, Andrew and Jessie Welsh purchased The Press Bar and Parlor. They managed the business through two legal entities: Horseshoe Club, LLC, which owned the real estate, and Timeless Bar, Inc., which operated the bar.

Incident and Legal Proceedings

The Press Bar and Parlor in St. Cloud, Minnesota was destroyed by fire on February 17, 2020. Law enforcement found that Andrew Welsh, a controlling officer of the insured, intentionally set the fire.

ICC denied the claim based on three policy provisions: Concealment, Misrepresentation or Fraud; Dishonesty Exclusion; and Intentional Acts Exclusion.

Court’s Decision

The District Court concluded Andrew’s conduct barred recovery under the policy.

KEY LEGAL POINTS

Jessie Welsh’s claims were dismissed due to lack of standing as a non-insured. Andrew’s conduct was deemed attributable to both business entities.

CONCLUSION

The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying coverage for the loss or damage caused by the fire.

Coverage under the policy was subject to a number of conditions. One of the listed conditions is categorized as “concealment, misrepresentation or fraud.” The policy refused to allow an insured to recover for a fire intentionally caused by the insured.

As noted by the district court, the policy determination of whether coverage should be extended to innocent, nonnamed business owners rests with the state legislature, not the federal courts.

ZALMA OPINION

When a person in control of two corporate entities commits arson-for-profit he, and the corporations he controlled, committed fraud when a proof of loss was submitted saying the fire was accidental. The corporate entities could not be “innocent” co-insureds when they were controlled by the arsonist. In this case crime didn’t pay.

(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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy

Go to X @bzalma;Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.

00:07:29
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
October 19, 2026
Plaintiff’s Reading of the Policy is Plaintiff’s Reasonable Allegations Posted on October 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma CLASS ACTION THAT STATES A SIMPLE CLEAR AND PLAUSIBLE CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVES Post 4868 In Sheila Marino v. Farmers New World Life Insura

Plaintiff’s Reading of the Policy is Plaintiff’s Reasonable Allegations

Posted on October 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post 4868

CLASS ACTION THAT STATES A SIMPLE CLEAR AND PLAUSIBLE CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVES

In Sheila Marino v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, No. 2:25-cv-02200-JNW, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (October 13, 2026) defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company’s (“FNWL”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sheila Marino’s putative class action involving flexible universal life insurance.

Marino filed a putative class action in King County Superior Court alleging: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

She pleaded two theories: an “overcharge” theory and an “underpayment of interest” theory asked the Court to take judicial notice of historical Federal Funds Effective Rates.

THE LAW

Pleading Standard.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a ...

post photo preview
October 22, 2026
John Madden and The US Patent and Trademark Office

Blockchain Fraud Detection Loses Protection

Posted on October 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

John Earl Madden (April 10, 1936 – December 28, 2021) was an American Professional Football Coach and Sports Commentator in the National Football League Seeking Patent & Trademark Protection

BLOCKCHAIN FRAUD

Mr. Madden was more than football. He was working to establish a program called “Fraud Protection Systems, Methods, and Computer Programs for Blockchain Financial Transactions.”

In Ex parte John Madden, Appeal 2026-001497, Application 18/495,506, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (October 14, 2026)

The Examiner rejected claims several numbered claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.

THE LAW

Section 101 makes patentable any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are implicitly excluded.

THE PATENT TRIAL AND ...

post photo preview
October 21, 2026
Supervisory Officials are not Individually Liable

Sovereign Immunity Defeats Suit Against Police Officers

Post 4866

Posted on October 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Chad Lightfoot, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 26-434, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (October 9, 2026) Chad Lightfoot was involved in an Orleans Parish automobile accident in 2011 and filed claims with several insurers, including Progressive.

After a related civil dispute, Progressive counsel allegedly submitted a false affidavit stating that Lightfoot had fraudulently received a $50,000 payment. A New Orleans police detective relied on the affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant, and Louisiana State Police Lieutenant Alan Arcana allegedly reported that Lightfoot had received the payment. Lightfoot was arrested in 2015 and charged with theft, insurance fraud, and perjury.

Plaintiffs alleged that no record of the payment existed and that the criminal charges were dismissed on October 15, 2024.

Lightfoot and Geralyn Hawkins filed suit in October 2025 and ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals