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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
