See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8PFPHuh and at https://lnkd.in/gkvM9jvK and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Suits Between Insurance Agents Excluded by E&O Policy
Post 5197
In Laurence Ziff, individually, and the Ziff agency, LLC v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company f/k/a Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 24-10529, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 23, 2025) Laurence Ziff and The Ziff Agency, LLC are insurance brokers sued Defendant Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company for defense and indemnity to a lawsuit alleging defamation.
FACTS:
Insurance Policy:
Plaintiffs purchased several insurance policies from Defendant, including the policy at issue, which provided “Company Sponsored Life Insurance Agents Errors and Omissions Liability Coverage”.
Plotkin Lawsuit:
The lawsuit arose from a dispute where David Plotkin and Richard Urbealis sued Plaintiffs in New Jersey state court, alleging defamatory statements made by Plaintiff Ziff during a meeting related to the sale of life insurance policies.
Exclusion K:
Defendant denied coverage based on Exclusion K, which disclaims liability for any claim arising out of disputes with other insurance agents or brokers.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
Motion to Dismiss:
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Exclusion K Interpretation:
The court found that Exclusion K was unambiguous and applicable, as it excluded coverage for disputes between insurance agents and brokers, including those concerning commissions, fees, and client lists.
ANALYSIS
Exclusionary clauses in insurance policies are narrowly construed. The insurer has the burden to prove that an exclusion applies. If there is more than one possible interpretation of the language, courts apply the meaning that supports coverage rather than the one that limits it. If the words used in an exclusionary clause are clear and unambiguous, a court will not engage in a strained construction to support the imposition of liability.
Defendant argued that the Plotkin Lawsuit was a dispute between insurance agents and brokers and that therefore Exclusion K must apply. Plaintiffs concede that Plotkin and Urbealis are “insurance agents” but contend that Plotkin and Urbealis did not sue Plaintiffs as insurance brokers or insurance agents and did not act as insurance brokers or insurance agents in the placement of the life insurance policies at issue.
Contrary to the allegations the record clearly demonstrated that Urbealis and Plotkin were acting as insurance agents when trying to sell life insurance policies to Kurtz. Since the language of Exclusion K is unambiguous and applies here Plaintiffs were not entitled to coverage under the Policy and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted because a court may dismiss a claim with prejudice when leave to amend would be futile. Because Plaintiffs failed to identify any way in which they would be entitled to coverage under the Plan, amending their complaint for a second time would be futile so the case was dismissed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies are contracts whose terms and conditions, when brought to a court, are interpreted by the court. The Allianz policy excluded disputes between agents and brokers in language that was clear and unambiguous and the dispute was a result of claims made by insurance agents or brokers against the insured insurance agent. No coverage was obvious.
(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.
Even With a Default the Plaintiff Needs Evidence
Post number 5262
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-because-defendant-defaults-court-still-has-zalma-esq-cfe-f9k2c, ee the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company v. SCD Premier Staffing Agency, LLC, et al., No. 1840-2024, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (January 6, 2026) dealt with a complaint in the Circuit Court for Worcester County against SCD Premier Staffing Agency, LLC (“SCD”) and its owner, Suze Cadet, alleging fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SCD is or was a Maryland limited liability company owned by Cadet, and CEIC provides workers’ compensation insurance to Maryland employers.
In ...
ZIFL Volume 30, Number 2
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5260
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzCr4jkF, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g432fs3q and at https://lnkd.in/gcNuT84h, https://zalma.com/blog, and at https://lnkd.in/gKVa6r9B.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ZIFL-01-15-2026.pdf.
The Contents of the January 15, 2026 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Use of the Examination Under Oath to Defeat Fraud
The insurance Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) is a condition precedent to indemnity under a first party property insurance policy that allows an insurer ...
ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
