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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
