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.
Even With a Default the Plaintiff Needs Evidence
Post number 5262
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-because-defendant-defaults-court-still-has-zalma-esq-cfe-f9k2c, ee the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company v. SCD Premier Staffing Agency, LLC, et al., No. 1840-2024, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (January 6, 2026) dealt with a complaint in the Circuit Court for Worcester County against SCD Premier Staffing Agency, LLC (“SCD”) and its owner, Suze Cadet, alleging fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SCD is or was a Maryland limited liability company owned by Cadet, and CEIC provides workers’ compensation insurance to Maryland employers.
In ...
ZIFL Volume 30, Number 2
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5260
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzCr4jkF, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g432fs3q and at https://lnkd.in/gcNuT84h, https://zalma.com/blog, and at https://lnkd.in/gKVa6r9B.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ZIFL-01-15-2026.pdf.
The Contents of the January 15, 2026 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Use of the Examination Under Oath to Defeat Fraud
The insurance Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) is a condition precedent to indemnity under a first party property insurance policy that allows an insurer ...
ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
