Owner of Property Not Named as Insured Has No Standing
Post number 5280
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gVwMZnES and at https://lnkd.in/geUWJ5Sa, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
When Ownership in Property Changes it is Essential to Cause the Policy to Name the New Owner as Insured
In Joyce Lynn Serauskas v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 25-cv-12474, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (February 4, 2026) in August 2024 a fire damaged a home on West 51st Street in Chicago. Joyce Lynn Serauskas filed an insurance claim with Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., under a homeowner’s policy originally issued to her mother, Estelle Bielecki, in 1978.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The policy had been automatically renewed every year with premiums paid on time, including at the time of the fire. However, Estelle Bielecki had passed away in 2010, and Serauskas had continued to reside in the home and pay premiums.
Eventually Serauskas acquired full ownership before the fire.
LEGAL ISSUES
Serauskas brought claims for breach of contract and for vexatious and unreasonable conduct under § 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. She also asserted estoppel and equitable lien claims, arguing Liberty Mutual created a reasonable expectation of coverage by accepting premiums and issuing renewals after Estelle’s death. Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss, challenging standing and the sufficiency of Serauskas’s claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The policy was issued to her deceased mother but Serauskas had paid premiums and lived at the property for years. Standing implicates the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(6) examines the legal sufficiency of the claims, requiring that factual allegations plausibly suggest the existence of jurisdiction and a viable claim. The court noted that standing is a fundamental requirement under Article III, focusing on whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute.
The court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss, though some claims were dismissed without prejudice, suggesting potential for refiling if properly pleaded. The analysis centered on whether Serauskas, as someone who paid premiums and ultimately owned the property, could enforce the policy issued in her mother’s name and whether Liberty Mutual’s conduct created a reasonable expectation of coverage despite the named insured’s death.
Liberty Mutual argued that the breach of contract claim must be dismissed because Serauskas lacks standing-she is not a party to the insurance contract and therefore cannot sue for breach.
A nonparty’s right to enforce a contract is governed by state law. There is no dispute that Estelle Bielecki is the “named insured” and the home on West 51st Street is the relevant Property described in the Policy. Because she is not a named insured, Liberty Mutual argued that Serauskas lacks standing to sue. It also notes that although the Policy contains an assignment provision, at no time prior to the fire in 2024 did Liberty Mutual provide written consent for assignment of the policy.
Serauskas’s arguments in response are non-starters.
The issue is not whether Serauskas was required under the Policy to notify Liberty Mutual of her mother’s death. It’s whether she qualified under the relevant provision of the Policy as a named insured. She did not.
The motion to dismiss was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
Ms. Serauskas was ignorant of the insurance issues raised by her mother’s death. First, a homeowners policy requires the named insured to reside in the premises for insurance to apply. In addition, only an insured, as defined by the policy, can recover as a result of a loss, like a fire. Serauskas was not an insured but resided in the premises. The named insured was dead and could not reside in the premises. To avoid the problem all that Serauskas’ needed to do was amend the policy to name her as an insured. She did not do so, was not an insured, and had no rights under the policy and the person with those rights was dead.
(c) 2026 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.
Arrest for Insurance Fraud is not a Violation of Constitutional Rights
Court Give Plaintiffs Acting as their Own Lawyer a Second Chance
Post number 5310
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ5yrK8m, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSPcXJ6A and at https://lnkd.in/gfdvbaMT, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Arin Sutton et al v. Lori Pozuelos et al., No. 5:25-cv-03544-MRA-MAR, United States District Court, C.D. California (March 20, 2026) Plaintiffs Darin Sutton and Youtha Baker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Lori Pozuelos, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege violations of their constitutional rights, though the complaint’s factual allegations are stated in general terms and lack specific detail as to the actions of each defendant.
Plaintiffs are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. ...
Suit Against Police Agency Dismissed
Post number 5309
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Conclusory Allegations, Unwarranted Deductions Of Facts Or Legal Conclusions Masquerading As Facts Will Not Prevent Dismissal.
In Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black v. Robert J. Perrault, Jr. and The Florida Department Of Financial Services, No. 8:25-cv-01466-WFJ-CPT, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division (March 19, 2026) Defendant Florida Department of Financial Services' (“DFS”) moved to Dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint.. Plaintiff Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black (“Black”) has responded in opposition.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Hunter Seaborn Mackenzie Black was an independent salesman for a licensed roofing contractor, conducting door-to-door roofing sales in Florida. Defendant Florida Department of Financial Services ...
Fraudsters Fight Over Ownership of the Subject of Their Fraud
Post number 5308
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/honor-among-thieves-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2nchc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Convicted Fraudsters Try to Cheat Each Other
After failing to defraud insurers about the loss of a diamond ring the two admitted fraudsters sought possession of the seized ring which was neither lost nor stolen but was seized by the state.
In State Of North Carolina v. Kevin Ray Reece and Debra Lee Goldman, No. COA25-569, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (March 18, 2026) two fraudsters disputed the ownership of a platinum-banded diamond ring seized during a criminal investigation as the subject of Insurance Fraud.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Kevin Ray Reece pleaded guilty to two counts of felony obstruction of justice related to the ring and requested its return...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
