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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
