Exclusions Defeat Claim for Defense & Indemnity
Genuine Dispute Dispels Claim of Bad Faith
Post 5167
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvGAeT7t and at https://lnkd.in/gh67UEyB.
In Diversified Restaurant Group, LLC, et al. v. Houston Casualty Company, et al., No. 25-cv-02344-EMC, United States District Court, N.D. California (July 31, 2025) Diversified Restaurant Group, LLC (DRG) and Golden Gate Bell, LLC (GGB) sued Houston Casualty Company (HCC), Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Company (PMIC), and Manufacturer’s Alliance Insurance Company (MAIC) around the denial of insurance coverage for a lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleged sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor.
Insurance Policies and Denial of Coverage:
DRG and GGB had insurance policies with PMIC and MAIC, which included general liability, workers’ compensation, and employer’s liability coverage. Both PMIC and MAIC denied coverage for the underlying lawsuit, citing various exclusions in their policies.
Exclusions:
The PMIC policy included Employment Related Practices (ERP) and Employment Liability (EL) exclusions, while the MAIC policy had a C.7 exclusion. These exclusions were used to justify the denial of coverage for the claims made in the underlying lawsuit.
UNDERLYING LAWSUIT:
The former employee’s lawsuit included claims of negligence, workplace sexual harassment, discrimination, and other related issues. The document details the specific allegations and the legal arguments surrounding the applicability of the insurance policy exclusions.
DUTY TO DEFEND:
The court emphasized that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, but it is measured by the nature and kinds of risks covered by the policy. The court concluded that the insurers had no duty to defend the insureds in the underlying lawsuit due to the applicability of the exclusions .
The insurer’s duty to defend is not extinguished until the insurer negates all facts suggesting potential coverage. Thus, an insurer may be excused from a duty to defend only when the third party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue which could bring it within the policy coverage. However, the duty to defend is not not unlimited; it is measured by the nature and kinds of risks covered by the policy.
Insurance Coverage Interpretation
Under California law, interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law and follows the general rules of contract interpretation. Therefore, the mutual intention of the parties at the time the contract is formed governs interpretation. If the policy language is clear and explicit, it governs. The clear and explicit meaning of these provisions, interpreted in their ordinary and popular sense, unless used by the parties in a technical sense or a special meaning is given to them by usage, controls judicial interpretation.
In determining whether a claim creates the potential for coverage under an insurance policy, the court is guided by the principle that interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law and the mutual intention of the parties at the time the contract is formed governs interpretation.
DISCUSSION
Finally, although Insureds attempt to impose a new carve-out to the “arising out of” phrase in the ERP Exclusion, arguing that only claims between an employee and an employer (as opposed to harassment between two co-employees) are “employment related,” the Insureds fail to cite to any case that imposes such an exception. Instead, courts have repeatedly construed “arising out of” broadly, even when it is present in an exclusion.
Because all alleged conduct in the Underlying Action against Moreno falls under the ERP Exclusion coverage, the Insureds have failed to establish any potential coverage under the PMIC Agreement and thus have failed to state a claim for breach of contract with PMIC.
The False Imprisonment and Sexual Assault Claims are subject to the ERP Exclusion
The Court need not address Insurers’ argument contesting whether the claims of the Underlying Action are “occurrences” within the scope of coverage under Coverage A: whether or not they are “occurrences,” they would still be precluded by the ERP Exclusion.
Breach of Implied Contract and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
A bad faith claim is subject to dismissal if the insurer shows a genuine dispute as to coverage. Given that ERP Exclusion and EL Exclusion of the PMIC Agreement and C.7 Exclusion of the MAIC Agreement apply to exclude coverage to DRG and GGB, the Insurers’ denial to continue defense and indemnification under its policy was reasonable and legally justified. As such, the Insureds cannot maintain a statutory bad faith claim against Insurers for its refusal to defend and indemnify. Accordingly, the claims for breach of implied contract and claim for breach of the implied covenant cannot proceed against MAIC or PMIC.
Court’s Decision:
The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by PMIC and MAIC, agreeing that the exclusions in the insurance policies precluded coverage for the claims made in the underlying lawsuit.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC in an exceedingly long opinion reached the decision called for by the clear and unambiguous exclusions in the policies issued by the three insurer defendants resulting in the dismissal of the suit. The mere fact that a plaintiff sues for the tort of bad faith is not enough, facts and evidence, are required. Since the exclusions created a genuine dispute thereby eliminating the cause of action for bad faith.
You can find a permanent public version of the document here: https://public.fastcase.com/jaEE2PXzRXmZ99jOLMt1Iqfrihk%2bzXYKQAQqMk84Z%2bGq%2fci2oKl%2bGLBe8SNEAKEvYQtwr1H8F%2bUlbzuvGUGvLQ%3d%3d
(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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
