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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
