USDC Bends Over Backwards to Give a Pro Se Plaintiff Some Causes of Action
Post 5157
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g9Q_P2tQ and at https://lnkd.in/g6HPdF9q, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When You Represent Yourself in Litigation You Have a Fool for a Lawyer
Plaintiff Gordon Clark, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant Olga L. Orengo and her auto insurance carrier, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (“Hanover”), related to a motor vehicle collision between Plaintiff and Orengo. Plaintiff alleged that Orengo was at fault for the accident, but Hanover has refused to accept liability. In Gordon Clark v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-348 (SVN), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (July 22, 2025)
Claims and Motions
Plaintiff has brought eight claims against both Defendants and a ninth claim against Hanover for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights under federal and state law. Defendants have both moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint in full for failure to state a claim. The court granted Orengo’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, while Hanover’s motion to dismiss has been granted in full.
Factual Background
The incident occurred on the evening of July 22, 2023, when Plaintiff’s vehicle was “T-boned” by Orengo’s vehicle at a highway onramp. Plaintiff alleges that Orengo was found to be at fault by the State Police Officer and issued a written warning for failure to maintain proper lane. Following the accident, Plaintiff experienced significant physical pain and suffering, which he attributed to the collision.
The court’s ruling addresses several legal claims:
Negligence:
The court dismisses the negligence claims against Hanover but finds that Plaintiff has stated claims for negligence and negligence per se against Orengo.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED):
The court dismissed the IIED claims against both Defendants, finding that the conduct alleged does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous required to sustain an IIED claim.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED):
The court dismissed the NIED claims against both Defendants, noting that the claims are duplicative of the negligence claims and failed to state a claim.
Insurance Fraud:
The court dismisses the insurance fraud claims against both Defendants, finding that Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for actions alleging fraud.
Assumption of Duty:
The court dismissed the assumption of duty claims without leave to replead, as the issue of assumption of duty is usually part of analyzing whether a duty exists to support a breach of contract or tort claim .
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing:
The court dismisses these claims, noting that Plaintiff does not allege that a contract existed between him and Hanover or Orengo.
Malice:
The court dismisses the malice claims, finding that malice is not a legally cognizable tort claim.
Violation of CUTPA:
The court dismissed the CUTPA claims against Hanover, noting that Plaintiff has neither alleged more than one act of insurance misconduct nor asserted a breach of contract claim.
CONCLUSION
The court granted Hanover’s motion to dismiss in full, and granted in part and denies in part Orengo’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint by August 21, 2025, consistent with the court’s ruling.
DISCUSSION
Beginning with Hanover, Plaintiff does not articulate how Hanover in any way caused the alleged injuries. Plaintiff’s arguments as to negligence focus solely on the collision between Orengo and Plaintiff. Hanover was not a party to the car accident and the amended complaint does not allege that Hanover acted negligently in any manner to cause the collision to occur.
Even if the negligence cause of action against Hanover were based on its alleged denial of liability coverage for the accident, it must still fail. Absent a direct contractual relationship between the injured party bringing the action and the insurance company of the alleged tortfeasor, or a third-party beneficiary relationship, an injured party is precluded from bringing a direct action for negligence against the insurer until judgment is obtained against the tortfeasor. It was undisputed that Plaintiff has no direct contractual relationship with Hanover.
As to Orengo, however, the Court held that Plaintiff has plausibly stated a negligence claim.
Negligence Per Se
Negligence per se effectively engrafts a particular statutory standard onto the standard of care imposed by the duty element of a negligence cause of action. To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff need not prove that the defendant failed to act as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the circumstances.
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a negligence per se claim.
ZALMA OPINION
Automobile Liability Insurance is a contract that promises to defend and, if necessary, indemnify its insured. When there is no evidence that the insurer was involved in causing the accident there can be no case against the insurer. Pro Se plaintiffs cause this kind of problem for courts by charging torts that don’t exist and suing parties that had no involvement. Giving the Pro Se plaintiff the benefit of the doubt the court allowed an amended complaint so that more judicial time can be taken to deal with incompetent lawyering by a non lawyer.
(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.
Death by Self-Administered Dialysis is Excluded
Post 5173
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvp3bKQF and at https://lnkd.in/gWWeqD7s, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Clear & Unambiguous Exclusion Effective
Dana Kleinsteuber died while administering her own dialysis at home. MetLife now agrees that tragedy was an accident but refused to pay because of an exclusion for losses caused or contributed to by the treatment of a physical illness.
In Charles M. Kleinsteuber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, CIVIL No. 23-3494 (JRT/DTS), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (August 19, 2025) the USDC was faced with the interpretation of an exclusion in an ERISA plan.
KEY FACTS:
Dana Kleinsteuber’s Death:
Dana Kleinsteuber, diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), was self-administering dialysis at home when she suffered acute blood loss and died. The cause of death was listed as ESRD and natural causes.
Insurance Claims:
Charles Kleinsteuber, Dana’s husband, filed claims for both ...
Not Wise to Attempt Rescission Without Evidence
Post 5173
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gMsRrCPj and at https://lnkd.in/g2hq9VtW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Desiree Durga and Justin Durga v. Memberselect Insurance Company, No. 371891, Court of Appeals of Michigan (August 13, 2025) Desiree Durga and Justin Durga (plaintiffs) claimed the insurer wrongfully attempted to rescind an auto policy.
THE ALLEGATIONS
MemberSelect claimed that Desiree Durga’s application for insurance contained a material misrepresentation, it did not produce a copy of the application. In fact defendant admitted the application for insurance no longer exists.
Trial Court Decision
The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition on their breach of contract claim and denied the defendant’s cross-motion for summary disposition, which argued that it was entitled to rescind the policy. The court found that the defendant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud
The court ...
Improper Joinder of Multiple Party Criminal Fraud Case With Co-Defendants Charged with Murder
Post 5172
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gG7gsyy8 and at https://lnkd.in/gcfHEjTW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Murder Defendants Must be Tried Separately from Fraud Defendants
A case that involved allegations of a years-long scheme by over a dozen individuals to stage fake automobile collisions in the New Orleans metropolitan area and file fraudulent insurance claims and lawsuits based on the staged collisions. The key individuals involved included Cornelius Garrison, who began cooperating with the federal government in 2019 and was subsequently murdered on September 22, 2020.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Ryan Harris, et al., CRIMINAL ACTION No. 24-105, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (July 25, 2025) the USCA dealt with motions to sever some defendants from the massive and admittedly complex case. There are 11 defendants charged with a multi-year conspiracy involving ...
Is Injury in the Course of Self-Defense an Occurrence?
Post 5171
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gAJnVny9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUTs-w6E and at https://lnkd.in/gQPspzmB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When There is no Accident the Intentional Acts Exclusion is Irrelevant
The case involves a tragic incident where Kimberly Mollicone was killed during a gunfight between her husband, Matthew Mollicone, and Daniele Giannone. The central issue is whether Giannone’s actions, taken in self-defense, are covered under his State Farm homeowner’s insurance policy.
In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Daniele Giuseppe Giannone; Heidi C. Aull, personal representative for the estate of Kimberly Ann Mollicone, Nos. 24-1264, 24-1265, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (August 5, 2025) resolved the dispute.
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE
Although rare in insurance contracts the policy in question provides coverage for the insured’s liability to third parties who are injured ...
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 ...
