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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
