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.
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 ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property at 919 U.S. Hwy 281, Wichita Falls, Texas, from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025. The policy carried a $309,250.50 deductible for windstorm and/or hail coverage.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property. ProNet confirmed hail impact on April 5, 2025, producing dents and panel separations on the roofing, but found that water intrusion and interior damage predated the storm. Defendant also obtained a third-party contractor bid.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67. Plaintiff contended the estimate and ...
Plaintiff Must Allege the Who, What, When, Where, and How requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Post 4573
Posted on October 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Civil Action No. 7:26-CV-00062-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Wichita Falls Division (October 22, 2026) Plaintiff Texoma Cowboy Church, Inc. was insured by Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. under a policy covering its property from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025.
FACTS
On or about April 5, 2025, a hail and windstorm allegedly damaged the property.
After deductible and depreciation, it paid $626,607.67.
1. The Original Petition asserted eight causes of action:
2. anticipatory breach and breach of contract;
3. breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing;
4. deceptive trade practices and unconscionable conduct;
violations of Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542 (Prompt Payment of Claims Act);
5. unfair insurance practices;
6. negligent misrepresentation;...
