Breach of Material Condition for Monitored Fire Alarm Voids Coverage
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6z0zh4-there-is-no-excuse-for-lying-to-an-insurer.html and at https://youtu.be/6PhLIpzBnQw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
No Monitored Fire Alarm: No Coverage
Post 5191
In Northfield Insurance Co. v. Michigan 32, LLC, No. 24-CV-12822, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (September 10, 2025) Defendant Michigan 32, LLC’s (MI 32) moved the court for reconsideration of the Court’s Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff Northfield Insurance Company (Northfield).
The matter arose out of a commercial insurance coverage dispute wherein Northfield denied MI 32’s fire loss claim. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Northfield on its Declaratory Judgment action.
THE ORIGINAL DECISION
The Protective Safeguard Endorsement
The Court held that MI 32’s admitted failure to comply with its Policy’s Protective Safeguard Endorsement (“PSE”), requiring that the insured building be protected by a centrally-monitored fire alarm, which was a condition precedent to coverage, precluded coverage for the fire loss under the PSE terms and fire loss exclusion. Second, the Policy was void ab initio where it was issued in reliance on MI 32’s undisputed material misrepresentations in its application, i.e., that it had an ADT-monitored fire alarm when its principal later admitted it never did. MI 32 now maintains the Court granted Northfield’s motion without addressing MI 32’s waiver and estoppel defenses.
The Motion for Reconsideration
The local rules of this district no longer allow a party to file a motion for reconsideration of final orders or judgments. Motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted only if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. While Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.
Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
1 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2 newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
3 fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
4 the judgment is void;
5 the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
6 any other reason that justifies relief.
In its response to Northfield’s motion for summary judgment, MI 32 argued that Northfield waived, or should be estopped from asserting, coverage preclusion or policy rescission because Northfield knew or should have known that MI 32 did not have an automatic fire alarm system. One basis of Northfield’s alleged knowledge was an August 25, 2022 phone conversation between MI 32’s principal and Traveler’s Risk Control Consultant Melissa Ellison, characterized by MI 32 as an “inspection,” which took place months after the Policy was issued.
ANALYSIS
The Court expressly found that MI 32 produced no evidence to contradict the Northfield underwriter’s affidavit attesting to the fact that Northfield did not know there was no automatic fire alarm system at the subject property when it issued the policies, and that it would not have issued the polices to MI 32 had it known.
The Court did not commit a clear error of law, or a manifest injustice, nor is there any basis to conclude that this an “unusual and extreme situation[] where principles of equity mandate relief.” MI 32 fails to satisfy its burden under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) and merely rehashes arguments contained in its responsive pleading that were already considered by the Court.
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration or rehearing was DENIED.
ZALMA OPINION
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all insurance contracts applies equally to the insured as it does to the insurer. In this case the insured blatantly lied on its application for insurance that it had a monitored fire alarm system that, after the fire, the insured admitted there was no alarm. The policy could have been rescinded for that lie and the endorsement, a condition precedent to coverage, eliminated the coverage. Therefore there was no coverage either way and the motion for reconsideration was a waste of time.
(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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
