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.