Time Bar Defeats Suits Against Insurer
Post 5247
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gupyuD33, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gSV8kf8S and at https://lnkd.in/gBrxCRDt, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Kevin J. Labudde v. The Phoenix Insurance Company, No. 7:21-CV-197-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division (December 12, 2025) Defendant The Phoenix Insurance Company (Phoenix) moved for summary judgment, moved to exclude the testimony of Donald Dinsmore and Jerome Redmond, and moved to seal certain documents.
FACTS
Kevin J. Labudde’s home was damaged by Hurricane Matthew on October 8, 2016. He discovered additional mold damage in January 2017 and hired a contractor, who filed an insurance claim with Phoenix Insurance Company. Phoenix found hail damage (covered by the policy) but determined the cost was below the deductible and denied coverage for water intrusion and mold, citing policy exclusions for seepage.
Second Claim:
On December 13, 2019, water again intruded into the property. Labudde filed a second claim. Phoenix’s adjuster, Erin Crane, could not determine the water’s source and hired Vertex Engineering. Vertex concluded that the damage was due to construction defects, not a covered peril. Phoenix denied coverage for water intrusion but paid for mold remediation (up to the policy limit) and roof replacement due to hail.
Lawsuit:
Labudde sued Phoenix on September 9, 2021, alleging breach of contract, unfair claims settlement practices under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and common law bad faith.
LAW – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Breach of Contract & Bad Faith:
Both claims have a three-year statute of limitations, starting from the date of loss. Since the initial damage occurred in 2016 and the lawsuit was filed in 2021, these claims are time-barred.
Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UDTPA):
This claim has a four-year statute of limitations, starting when the insurer denies coverage. The court found the claim time-barred as to the 2017 claim, but not clearly time-barred for the 2019 claim, so it allowed the 2019-related UDTPA claim to proceed.
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTPA)
To prove a UDTPA violation, a plaintiff must show:
1. An unfair or deceptive act or practice
2. In or affecting commerce
3. That proximately caused injury.
A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive; proof of actual deception is not required.
If substantial aggravating circumstances accompany a breach of contract, then those circumstances can create a UDTPA claim.
The court found that Phoenix’s investigation and communication regarding the 2019 claim were adequate. Phoenix hired an outside expert, considered Labudde’s input, and communicated its decision. There was no evidence that Phoenix misled the engineer, withheld information, or failed to respond in a timely manner.
Expert Testimony
The court excluded portions of the plaintiff’s expert testimony on the UDTPA claim, finding it amounted to legal conclusions rather than helpful expert opinion.
Motion to Seal
The court granted Phoenix’s motion to seal certain documents containing proprietary business information, finding the need for confidentiality outweighed the public’s right of access.
CONCLUSION
The court granted summary judgment for Phoenix on all claims except the UDTPA claim related to the 2019 insurance claim, which was not clearly time-barred but ultimately failed on the merits. The court also granted the motion to seal certain documents and excluded some expert testimony.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance claims created by a contractor rather than an insurance professional like a Public Insurance Adjuster or a lawyer, are often questionable. By the time Phoenix was sued the statute of limitations of the first claim had run and the second claim was not due to an insured against peril. When an insured is upset with the result of a claim he or she should consult with either a public insurance adjuster or an attorney. If the insurance professional suggests the claim denial was wrong then, before the running of the statute of limitations or a private limitation of action provision and then retain counsel to sue promptly. The summary judgment was granted because the insured did not follow that advice.
(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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; 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...
