Denying a Claim in the State Gives Court Standing
Post number 5302
Posted on March 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In 5th LLC v. Kemah Capital Holdings, LLC d/b/a Kemah Marine and Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company, No. CIV-25-364-D, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (March 10, 20260
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 5th LLC purchased an insurance policy for its Moonen 83 yacht, covering the period from October 27, 2022, to October 27, 2023. On December 24, 2022, the yacht sustained damage due to seawater intrusion, which Plaintiff alleges should be covered under the policy. Plaintiff filed a claim that was denied three times, each denial referencing Kemah Capital Holdings and signed by a Kemah representative acting on behalf of Clear Spring Property & Casualty Company.
Kemah asserted it had an agreement with Clear Spring to market, broker, and underwrite insurance on Clear Spring’s behalf.
LEGAL ISSUES
Defendant Kemah Capital sought dismissal on three grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6).
DISCUSSION
The core dispute centered on whether Kemah’s involvement and actions related to the denial of Plaintiff’s insurance claim created sufficient grounds for liability under the policy. Plaintiff’s allegations emphasize Kemah’s direct role in claim investigation and denial, as well as its contractual relationship with Clear Spring. Kemah’s defense focuses on jurisdictional arguments and whether Plaintiff has properly stated a claim.
ANALYSIS
Kemah’s contacts with Oklahoma, as evidenced by its role in investigating and denying the claim, support personal jurisdiction.
Kemah is subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma.
The determination involves an application of the law to the facts as set forth in the affidavits and complaints, favoring the plaintiff where a conflict exists, as well as a determination as to the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations in light of the facts presented.
A court may, consistent with due process, assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. Even when a plaintiff’s cause of action does not arise directly from a defendant’s forum-related activities, the court may nonetheless maintain general personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the defendant’s business contacts with the forum state.
Kemah is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma.
First, the court must consider whether the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Second if the defendant’s actions create sufficient minimum contacts. The court must then consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
The Court found a conflict here as to Kemah’s role in the denial of Plaintiff’s insurance claim. In favoring the plaintiff where a conflict exists, the Court found that sufficient facts exist to support specific personal jurisdiction over Kemah in this Court.
Reasonableness
Kemah’s argument falls short of presenting a “compelling case” as to why jurisdiction in Oklahoma is unreasonable. Thus, Kemah is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this Court.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate the presence of the following:
1. injury in fact—meaning the invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
2. a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct—meaning that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and
3. a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision—meaning that the prospect of obtaining relief from a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court found that Plaintiff has standing to assert its breach of contract claim against Kemah.
Plaintiff asserts facts that, if taken as true, a jury could find that Kemah meant to bind itself to the contract. Thus, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim survives Kemah’s motion to dismiss.
ZALMA OPINION
Taking on the obligation to adjust a claim for a yacht damaged by intrusion of sea water from Oklahoma gives sufficient grounds for Oklahoma to deal with the insurance litigation.
(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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
