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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
