Sometimes the Best Court Decision is to Do Nothing
Post 5209
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/abstention-protects-against-risk-potentially-fact-zalma-esq-cfe-chkzc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 24-CV-3309 (PKC) (TAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 30, 2025) the parties C.C.C. and HCC filed actions against Scottsdale in New York state court regarding Scottsdale’s insurance coverage obligations.
FACTS
Underlying Labor Litigation:
Hector David Campoverde sustained injuries from a scaffold fall at a construction site in Brooklyn, New York, on September 14, 2015. Campoverde, an employee of Vazquez Bro Restoration Inc., was working for C.C.C. Renovation Inc., a subcontractor of L&M Builders Group LLC.
LEGAL ISSUES
Declaratory Judgment:
Starr sought a declaratory judgment regarding Scottsdale’s obligations under the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 policies.
Abstention Doctrine:
The court considered whether to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) due to the ongoing State Court Action.
Priority of Coverage:
Dispute over whether Scottsdale or Starr should provide primary coverage for the claims against L&M.
Unjust Enrichment:
Starr claims that Scottsdale has been unjustly enriched by denying coverage.
DISCUSSION
Abstention is Appropriate in this Matter
The parties do not dispute that the Court has jurisdiction under the DJA; rather, they dispute whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction.
Scottsdale moved to dismiss this action on the ground that abstention is appropriate. The primary basis for Scottsdale’s argument is that the underlying issue to be resolved-whether Scottsdale had an excess liability insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident-is currently being litigated in the pending State Court Action. Starr opposed the motion, asserting, inter alia, that there are several differences between this case and the State Court Action.
Scottsdale argued that this litigation is wholly duplicative of the litigation already pending in state court. The Court agreed. In the State Court Action, though C.C.C. discontinued its claims, Scottsdale, its agents, and HCC- the primary insurer for Starr’s insured, L&M-continue to litigate the very issue at the core of Starr’s requested relief in this action: whether Scottsdale had an excess insurance coverage policy in effect at the time of the accident.
Because the underlying question of Scottsdale’s coverage obligations is still unresolved in the State Court Action, the “risk of potentially contradictory fact finding between the state and federal court on this critical issue means that entertaining jurisdiction in this action would not clarify or settle the legal issues involved.
CONCLUSION
The Court concluded that exercising jurisdiction at this time would only further confuse them as this Court and the state court may come to differing conclusions as to whether Scottsdale had an insurance policy in effect on the date of the accident. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied, but its request for a stay, in the alternative, was granted and the matter was stayed pending resolution of the State Court Action.
ZALMA OPINION
I recently had a fight with a neighborhood sidewalk and fractured my nose and the base of my right eye. I went to an ENT specialist who gave me the same advice that the court gave the parties: To heal the best choice is to do nothing. The doctor, I and the USDC agreed. The best option for the case is to do nothing until the state court decision is final. Nothing can be gained from two courts with contradictory factual and legal findings.
(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.
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...
