There is no Privity Between Adjuster & an Insured
A Claim Against an Insurer for Wrongful Conduct Cannot Be Maintained Against Its Adjuster
Post number 5321
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gH6wPd45 and at https://lnkd.in/gB-7JpHZ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Lambert v. SafePort Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 25-1446 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2026) (Morgan, J.) Plaintiff Lisa Lambert held a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by SafePort Insurance Company covering her property against windstorms and wind damage. After two separate windstorms damaged her home (the “First Wind Claim” and “Second Wind Claim”), she promptly reported both losses and attempted to mitigate damages.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SageSure Insurance Managers LLC acted as the claims adjuster/manager for SafePort. In both instances:
A field adjuster inspected the property and denied coverage, attributing the damage to “foundation settling as a result of earth movement” (an excluded peril that allegedly caused water pooling on the roof).
After the second denial, an engineer retained by SageSure allegedly inspected the property, initially identified a different roof type and damage cause, but the final engineering report was altered (at the direction of SageSure and/or SafePort) to match the field adjuster’s earth-movement denial rationale.
Plaintiff alleged the alterations and misrepresentations were intentional and part of a scheme to wrongfully deny valid wind-damage claims.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff sued both SafePort and SageSure asserting seven causes of action including Breach of contract, Breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Fraud / intentional misrepresentation, Conspiracy to commit fraud, Unfair trade practices in the business of insurance, Insurance fraud, and Negligent misrepresentation
SageSure moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims against it with prejudice. Plaintiff expressly conceded in briefing that she was “not suing SageSure for breach of contract.”
LAW
General Pleading Standard (Rule 12(b)(6))
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Legal conclusions, threadbare recitals, and naked assertions are disregarded. Dismissal is proper if the face of the complaint shows a bar to relief.
Fraud / Conspiracy Pleading Standard (Rule 9(b))
Fraud and conspiracy-to-defraud claims must be pled with particularity: the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud. Collective/group pleading that fails to distinguish each defendant’s role is insufficient. Malice and intent may be pled generally, but the circumstances of fraud must be specific.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
The Court addressed each claim in turn and found all deficient as to SageSure:
Breach of Contract
SageSure is not the insurer; the policy declarations name SafePort. Claim dismissed (and plaintiff conceded it).
Breach of Duty of Good Faith & Fair Dealing
Statutes apply only to insurers. SageSure is an adjuster/manager, not the insurer and there was no privity.
Insurance Fraud (La. R.S. § 22:1924)
Criminal statute; no private right of action.
Unfair Trade Practices in Insurance
No private right of action.
Fraud / Intentional Misrepresentation
Negligent Misrepresentation
Louisiana law generally imposes no tort duty on an independent adjuster for claims handling. Plaintiff pled no facts fitting any narrow exception.
Failed Rule 9(b) particularity: allegations lumped SageSure, SafePort, adjusters, and the engineer together without identifying specific fraudulent statements, speakers, dates, or locations.
Independently fatal: no allegation of justifiable reliance. Plaintiff never pled she took or refrained from any action because of the alleged misrepresentation
All deficiencies were incurable on the current pleading, so dismissal was with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
SageSure’s Motion to Dismiss was granted. All seven claims against Sagesure were dismissed with prejudice. The case proceeds solely against the actual insurer, SafePort Insurance Company.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance adjusters act as agents of insurers but are not insurers. The insured who claims the contract was breached and the insurer acted wrongfully against the insured does not allow the insured to sue the adjuster because there is no privity between the insured and the adjuster. The plaintiff could maintain her action against the insurer but not the adjuster.
(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://gbarryzalma.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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
