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.
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
