Life Insurer Took Advantage of Plaintiff But Damages not Proved
Post 5187
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-liable-only-1-damages-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-chbnc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yoz9y-insurer-liable-but-only-for-1-damages.html and at https://youtu.be/OaX51GsfLcg, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Malcolm Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, No. 24-1316, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (September 3, 2025) the Fourth Circuit’s opinion addressed the sufficiency of evidence for a jury’s damages award in a negligence case involving AXA Equitable Life Insurance and Malcolm Wiener. AXA was found liable for negligence yet the court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to reasonably calculate Wiener’s damages beyond minimal damages.
AXA liable for negligence but damages unsupported:
The court affirmed AXA’s negligence liability but ruled the jury’s $16 million damages award was unsupported due to insufficient evidence on Wiener’s expected remaining lifespan.
Damages require reasonable certainty under North Carolina law:
Under North Carolina law, damages must be proved with reasonable certainty, requiring specific and complete evidence to allow a jury to reasonably conclude the amount. Speculative damages are not permitted.
Two key data points needed for damages calculation:
To calculate damages for increased insurance premiums, the jury needed evidence of (1) additional annual premiums Wiener would pay, and (2) his expected remaining lifespan after 2014. Wiener provided evidence only for the first.
Insufficient evidence on Wiener’s expected lifespan:
The jury lacked adequate medical or actuarial evidence to determine Wiener’s remaining lifespan, with only general health remarks and a video call observation offered, which the court found speculative.
Nominal damages awarded due to lack of damage proof:
Since Wiener established causation and injury but failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty, the court held nominal damages of $1 were appropriate.
Jury’s use of death benefit as damages measure rejected:
Wiener’s argument that the $16 million death benefit of a hoped-for replacement policy could serve as damages was rejected as it confused the injury type; the injury was increased cost, not loss of policy termination.
Prior rulings and procedural posture:
The case had prior appeals affirming negligence liability but remanding for damages evaluation. The district court granted AXA’s Rule 50(b) motion to reduce damages, which the appellate court affirmed, declining to address a conditional new trial motion.
In the second time the case come before the Fourth Circuit on appeal. The first time, the parties disputed, among other things, whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find AXA liable for causing Malcolm Wiener’s inability to find a life insurance policy. The Fourth Circuit held that there was but remanded to have the district court determine whether the jury had sufficient evidence to calculate the amount of Wiener’s damages. The district court found the evidence lacking.
DISCUSSION
With AXA’s liability settled, the sole question on appeal is whether the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that Wiener suffered $16 million in damages.
The Jury Lacked Sufficient Evidence To Calculate Damages
Taking the evidence in the most favorable light to the party opposing the motion the Fourth Circuit asked whether a reasonable jury could have arrived at its conclusion. Under North Carolina law, proof of damages must be made with reasonable certainty. Although absolute certainty is not required, damages may not be awarded where the evidence permits no more than speculation.
The evidence fell short. The injury is that Wiener could not obtain insurance at a reasonable price because AXA’s erroneous MIB codes prevented carriers from issuing a policy at the standard rate. In other words, Wiener would have had to pay increased premiums over the rest of his life to receive the same permanent life insurance coverage through death.
AXA argued that we cannot assume that Wiener could have obtained a policy at the standard rate in the absence of erroneous MIB codes. Wiener’s expected remaining lifespan in 2014. North Carolina courts have rejected damages awards from juries that had more medical information than the jury did here. Wiener needed to put forth evidence directly establishing his expected remaining lifespan. Because he did not, the jury should not be permitted to speculate how long, in their opinion, they think Wiener’s life will continue in the future.
The jury was not given sufficient evidence to determine Wiener’s expected remaining lifespan. And without that data point, the jury could not calculate Wiener’s damages with reasonable certainty. That leaves Wiener to recover nominal damages of $1.
ZALMA OPINION
Although the District Court and the Fourth Circuit agreed that AXA took advantage of the plaintiff in how it calculated its premium, since they did not prove Wiener’s life expectancy the calculation of damages failed and he was only entitled, after two appeals, to $1 in damages. The lawyers, if on a contingency, earned $0.40 to $0.45 cents of the damages. This case establishes that even if an insurance company does wrong does not mean that the plaintiff will get rich with large compensatory damages and punitive damages.
(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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
