Insured May Intervene to Assert Bad Faith Claim Not Assigned
Post 5203
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v7013x8-insured-cant-assign-bad-faith-claim.html and at https://youtu.be/e8OApzn6YZs, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Judge Requires Conflict Between Different District Courts in Louisiana Requires Conflict to be Resolved on Appeal
In Allstate Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-01295-BAJ-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (September 30, 2025) Vina Cleaners, the insured, assigned its claim against Ohio Security to Allstate Construction but did not assign its rights to sue for the tort of bad faith so it intervened in Allstate Construction’s suit.
Background and Procedural History:
In an insurance dispute following damage caused by Hurricane Ida to Vina Cleaners’ property. Vina Cleaners was insured under a commercial policy with the Defendant, Ohio Security Insurance Company. Vina Cleaners assigned its rights under the policy to Allstate Construction, which then filed suit against the Defendant for breach of contract and bad faith.
Legal Issues:
The main legal issue revolves around whether Vina Cleaners can assert bad faith claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973 after assigning its rights to Allstate Construction. The court was required to decide if the assignment of rights included the right to pursue bad faith penalties, which are considered “extracontractual”. The USDC noted that there is a conflict between different district courts in Louisiana regarding the interpretation of these statutes.
ANALYSIS
The Court dismissed Allstate Construction’s bad faith claims against the insurer. The Court reasoned that Allstate Construction’s bad faith claims were “extracontractual” and the assignment of rights between Vina Cleaners and Allstate Construction did not expressly include an assignment of claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:1892 or 22:1973.
Vina Cleaners, as an Intervenor, seeks to assert the same bad faith claims against the insurer. The court noted that in Creamer Brothers Inc. v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, No. CV 22-6110, 2024 WL 4518347 (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that an assignor that assigned its rights under an insurance policy did not assign its bad faith claims because the assignment was not sufficiently express. Thus, the Western District held that the assignor retained its rights to bring bad faith claims against the insurer.
Vina Cleaners asked the Court to follow the Western District’s decision in Creamer Brothers and reject an interpretation that would allow insurers to evade accountability for bad faith conduct solely because the insured exercised its right to assign policy benefits.
There is a conflict between the Louisiana federal district courts’ interpretation of Louisiana law on this issue. Second, this is an important issue for both parties. If the Court grants Defendant’s Motion, the result is that no party holds the right to assert bad faith claims against Defendant. If the Court denies Defendant’s Motion, Defendant faces steep penalties under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes when it is unclear whether that result is legally sound. Since the issue involving Allstate Construction and the same counsel is presently on appeal, the USDC decided to not decide and denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Vina Cleaners’ Complaint of Intervention without prejudice hoping that the appellate court resolves the dispute between District Courts and the Motion can be renewed depending on how the appellate court rules.
ZALMA OPINION
The tort of bad faith is extracontractual and, therefore, cannot be assigned as an insured can assign any rights it has against an insurer under the contract. Allstate Construction tried to get tort damages from the court based on its assignment from Vina Cleaners, and lost. Vina then moved to intervene in the suit to get the tort damages allowed by Louisiana statutes even though it had given away its contract rights to Allstate Construction. The court, faced with different interpretations and a pending appeal, the court punted and by ruling “without prejudice” let the parties litigate but kept the motion to intervene subject to dismissal after the appellate court rules.
(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 InsuranceClaims 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 ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
