Insured Must Give Prompt Notice of Loss
Post 5256
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBXRbKXD, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4DKfUDz and at https://lnkd.in/g65V_RQ7 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Once The Insured Knows There is Damage It is Obligated to Report the Loss to the Insurer
In Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, No. 24-cv-3130 (AS), United States District Court, S.D. New York (January 2, 2026) resolved a case brought by a church against an insurance company for denying coverage after Hurricane Ida. After discovery, the insurance company moved for summary judgment because it claimed the insured breached a material condition of the policy.
BACKGROUND
Greater St. Stephen Ministries, Inc., a church located in Louisiana, owned property that suffered damage from Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021. The property was insured under a policy with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, which required the insured to provide “prompt notice” of any loss or damage, with an absolute deadline of one year from the date of loss to file a claim.
Greater St. Stephen waited nearly four months after the hurricane to submit its insurance claim. Mt. Hawley investigated and found most evidence of moisture had dissipated, and the engineer concluded that any storm-related damage was minor and repairable, falling below the policy’s deductible. Mt. Hawley denied the claim.
Greater St. Stephen responded by suing.
LEGAL ISSUES
Under New York law, compliance with a notice-of-occurrence provision is a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability. The court must interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant but requires the non-movant to produce evidence supporting the essential elements of its claim.
In this case, the insurance contract obligated Greater St. Stephen to give “prompt notice” of loss or damage. The notice obligation is triggered when circumstances known to the insured would suggest to a reasonable person the possibility of a claim.
DISCUSSION
Greater St. Stephen Didn't Give Mt. Hawley Prompt Notice Of The Damage, So Summary Judgment Was Granted To Mt. Hawley
Compliance with a notice-of-occurrence provision in an insurance policy is a condition precedent to an insurer's liability under the policy. Greater St. Stephen didn't submit a formal claim until four months after the hurricane. The notice obligation was triggered when the circumstances known to the insured would have suggested to a reasonable person the possibility of a claim. The clock started running for Greater St. Stephen when it should have known about the possibility of a claim.
Greater St. Stephen conceded that it was made aware of damages to the Property approximately 3-4 days after the Hurricane and hired a public adjuster to scope it out. It argued that the clock shouldn't start then because the property manager was uncertain of the damages. That argument is flatly contradicted by the record. The manager showed up at the property a week or two after the hurricane because he got a call from the tenants about a week earlier telling him that the building was “damaged in the ceiling.” The manager walked around inside the building and saw leaks. Although he couldn't see if the roof was damaged, when he saw the leaks inside, that's when he said he needed to call a public insurance adjuster who represented Greater St. Stephen, not the insurer. By calling in a public adjuster the manager admitted that there was a “possibility of a claim."
That's the case despite Greater St. Stephen's two arguments to the contrary.
It doesn't matter that Greater St. Stephen may not have understood the full extent of the damages, as it argues.
The standard for when an insured must notify their insurer is not when they learn of the full extent of the damages but is instead when they learn that there is any reasonable possibility of their policy's involvement.
Greater St. Stephen's property manager testified unambiguously about when he was alerted to the damage, and the parties don't disagree about any dates of inspection.
Greater St. Stephen Failed To Give Prompt Notice Once Its Duty To Notify Kicked In
Assuming that Greater St. Stephen knew of the possibility of a claim two weeks after Hurricane Ida, that means that its December notice came around 90 days afterward. By failing to give prompt notice of a loss Greater St. Stephen breached the condition. The court concluded the church failed to comply with the policy’s notice requirement, and summary judgment was granted in favor of Mt. Hawley.
ZALMA OPINION
Public insurance adjusters are insurance professionals who work only for the insured against the insurer. I can only assume that the public insurance adjuster was aware of the conditions of the policy requiring prompt notice and should have done so on behalf of his or her client, Greater St. Stephen to Mt. Hawley. By failing to promptly report the claim was denied and the court affirmed the denial. Greater St. Stephen is not without a remedy, it should seek counsel to determine if an action lies against the public adjuster for failing to make a prompt report after being retained.
(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.
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
