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.
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
