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.
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
