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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
