Interrelated Acts Constitute a Single Claim
Post 5165
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geriBpJT and at https://lnkd.in/gJxi77kg and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Yonah Rothman v. Complete Packaging & Shipping Supplies, Inc. and Mitchell Mankosa, Complete Packaging & Shipping Supplies, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-2821-SJB-ST, United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 4, 2025) dealt with the issue of parties seeking a partial judgment to be resolved on appeal.
Complete Packaging & Shipping Supplies, Inc. (“Complete”) and Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) litigated disputes about coverage in relation to the Rothman employment discrimination action.
THE KEY ISSUES
Background:
Yonah Rothman filed a lawsuit against Complete and Mitchell Mankosa, alleging employment discrimination, underpayment, and wrongful termination. Rothman claims he was retaliated against for participating in a separate lawsuit brought by another employee.
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Complete sought defense and indemnification from Arch based on their insurance policy. The policy covers conduct between December 5, 2021, and December 5, 2022, and includes an “interrelated claims” provision.
Court’s Decision:
The court dismissed Complete’s third-party complaint seeking defense and indemnity from Arch. The dismissal was based on the finding that the Rothman Actions arose from the same interrelated acts, constituting a single claim made in 2020, which was outside the policy’s coverage period.
Rule 54(b) Motion:
Complete filed a motion for entry of a partial judgment under Rule 54(b) to appeal the dismissal order.
Judicial Concerns:
The court highlighted concerns about the immediate appeal of indemnity issues, which are related to liability and may require the appellate court to address factual issues still being litigated.
ANALYSIS
Complete filed a Third-Party Complaint against Arch, seeking defense and indemnification in the Rothman Action based on an insurance policy between them (the “Policy”). The Policy provides coverage to Complete for conduct between December 5, 2021, to December 5, 2022.
The Policy also contains an “interrelated claims” provision that provides that all claims arising from the same facts are considered a single claim and deemed to have been brought on the date of the earlier claim.
The USDC noted that the employment discrimination actions arose from the same interrelated acts-the alleged retaliation by Complete against Rothman for his assistance with another lawsuit against Complete. Judge Merchant held that the two Actions constituted a single claim made in 2020, outside of the Policy’s coverage. Judge Merchant, therefore, granted Arch’s motion to dismiss.
The USDC concluded that the long-standing policy against piecemeal appeals required that the court’s power to enter such a final judgment before the entire case is concluded. The USDC noted that permitting an aggrieved party to take an immediate appeal, must be exercised sparingly.
Complete offers no alleged hardship or injustice for the Court to consider. Complete seeks judgment on both parts of the Arch dismissal, i.e., a resolution of both defense and indemnity obligations under the contract. The district court certified as final judgments its orders holding the insurers liable to provide a defense and allocating defense costs amongst the insurers. Final judgment was not entered with respect to the insurers’ duty to indemnify, however.
Although indemnity and liability issues are in some sense separate and distinct, they are nevertheless related. Indeed, by its very nature indemnity is collateral to and dependent upon a finding of liability. But even as to defense obligations, there is no blanket requirement that such issues be certified for partial appeal. Rule 54(b) judgment (and appeal) imposes a more demanding standard than the parties’ own assessment that it would be efficient to allow these appeals.
To that end, a defense claim (even against a third-party insurer) must be extricable and separate from the other claims being litigated. Were the Court to certify the dismissal for appeal, the Second Circuit could be forced to make an insurance coverage decision that would be undermined or superseded by a subsequent ruling in the underlying litigation.
Piecemeal litigation is not only inefficient but raises the risk of inconsistent judgments in coverage litigation that is appealed while underlying merits are resolved.
The motion for entry of a partial judgment under Rule 54(b) was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance coverage disputes are seldom easy. In this case the court found a duty to defend one part of the litigation seeking defense from the insurer, Arch, but found that both cases were based on a single cause that occurred before the Arch policy became effective. Seeking an Appeal of the issue of duty to defend or the duty to indemnify before a decision was made on the one issue sought to piecemeal the appeals, stretching the litigation beyond efficiency, which was properly refused.
(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.
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...
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 ...
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
