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.
When Harm is Inherent in the Nature of the Act it is Intentional
Post 5237
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
No Coverage for Intentional Acts
Hitting a Person in the Face is an Intentional Act
In Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company v. Brian C. Sullivan, et al., George A. Ciminello, No. 2022-01607, Index No. 21632/14, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (November 19, 2025) George A. Ciminello was injured when struck in the face by a cup filled with liquid, thrown from a moving vehicle operated by Brian C. Sullivan, with Robert Harford as the passenger who threw the cup. The vehicle approached Ciminello at about 30 mph, from 2 to 10 feet away, and Harford extended his arm to make contact. The cup splintered upon impact.
Sullivan and Harford later conceded liability on the intentional tort claim before a damages trial.
Insurance Policy:
Unitrin Auto and Home...
Obtaining Title to Church by Fraud Defeated
Post 5238
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unmitigated-gall-abuse-elderly-bishop-his-church-zalma-esq-cfe-xcasc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
It is Villainous to Steal Church Property from Sick and Elderly Bishop
In Testimonial Cathedral Local Church of God in Christ v. EquityKey Real Estate Option, LLC et al. (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 8, No. B331522 (Nov. 18, 2025) EquityKey (through broker Steven Sharpe and Frank Wheaton, a trusted advisor/friend of elderly Bishop Jimmy Hackworth) presented a deal supposedly for a $4 million life-insurance policy on Hackworth’s life with EquityKey as beneficiary. In exchange, EquityKey paid Hackworth $400,000 upfront.
Factual Background
To qualify Hackworth for the large policy, church real property on South Western Ave., Los Angeles was temporarily ...
Guilty of Money Laundering Scheme
Post 5238
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gqh7V46x and at https://lnkd.in/gmE-zrDC and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Prison Sentence for Fraud Must be Limited to the Fraud in Which the Defendant Participated
In United States v. Stephen O. Anagor, No. 2:24-CR-00019-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 26, 2025) by Judge Clifton L. Corker the government sought to increase the defendant’s sentence because his co-conspirators added a fraudulent FBI scam that resulted in the victim’s suicide. Anagor sought a lower sentence because he was only involved in part of the fraud.
Charges & Plea
Defendant, a U.S. Army soldier pled guilty on June 11, 2025 to Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud, Aiding and Abetting Aggravated Stalking Resulting in Death and Aiding and Abetting Aggravated Identity Theft that was part of a larger 38-count superseding indictment against Anagor and co-defendants Chinagorom Onwumere and Salma Abdalkareem for an international Nigerian-based ...
The Professional Claims Handler
Post 5219
Posted on October 31, 2025 by Barry Zalma
An Insurance claims professionals should be a person who:
Can read and understand the insurance policies issued by the insurer.
Understands the promises made by the policy.
Understand their obligation, as an insurer’s claims staff, to fulfill the promises made.
Are competent investigators.
Have empathy and recognize the difference between empathy and sympathy.
Understand medicine relating to traumatic injuries and are sufficiently versed in tort law to deal with lawyers as equals.
Understand how to repair damage to real and personal property and the value of the repairs or the property.
Understand how to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement with the insured that is fair and reasonable to both the insured and the insurer.
How to Create Claims Professionals
To avoid fraudulent claims, claims of breach of contract, bad faith, punitive damages, unresolved losses, and to make a profit, insurers ...
The History Behind the Creation of a Claims Handling Expert
The Insurance Industry Needs to Implement Excellence in Claims Handling or Fail
Post 5210
This is a change from my normal blog postings. It is my attempt. in more than one post, to explain the need for professional claims representatives who comply with the basic custom and practice of the insurance industry. This statement of my philosophy on claims handling starts with my history as a claims adjuster, insurance defense and coverage lawyer and insurance claims handling expert.
My Training to be an Insurance Claims Adjuster
When I was discharged from the US Army in 1967 I was hired as an insurance adjuster trainee by a professional and well respected insurance company. The insurer took a chance on me because I had been an Army Intelligence Investigator for my three years in the military and could use that training and experience to be a basis to become a professional insurance adjuster.
I was initially sat at a desk reading a text-book on insurance ...
The History Behind the Creation of a Claims Handling Expert
The Insurance Industry Needs to Implement Excellence in Claims Handling or Fail
Post 5210
This is a change from my normal blog postings. It is my attempt. in more than one post, to explain the need for professional claims representatives who comply with the basic custom and practice of the insurance industry. This statement of my philosophy on claims handling starts with my history as a claims adjuster, insurance defense and coverage lawyer and insurance claims handling expert.
My Training to be an Insurance Claims Adjuster
When I was discharged from the US Army in 1967 I was hired as an insurance adjuster trainee by a professional and well respected insurance company. The insurer took a chance on me because I had been an Army Intelligence Investigator for my three years in the military and could use that training and experience to be a basis to become a professional insurance adjuster.
I was initially sat at a desk reading a text-book on insurance ...
