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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
