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.
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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
