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.
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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
