Detroit Immune From Tort Action
Post number 5367
City Leased to a Private Entity the Maintenance and Control of Sewer Systems and had no obligation for its failure.
In American Select Insurance Co., et al. v. Great Lakes Water Authority, et al., No. 23-cv-11942, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (June 2, 2026) involved Plaintiff insurers who had paid claims to approximately 1,400 insured homeowners for flood damage caused by June 25–26, 2021 sewer overflows/backups in the Detroit metro area.
The insurers sued the City of Detroit, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), and the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) as subrogees, alleging three sewer-system defects: (1) insufficient overall system capacity to handle the storm, (2) defects at the Freud Pumping Station, and (3) defects at the Conner Creek Pumping Station.
FACTS
The Detroit Defendants historically operated the whole system, but under a 2015 40-year lease, GLWA assumed exclusive control, operation, and maintenance responsibility for the regional portion of the sewer system, including the pumping stations at issue.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint several times. In the Third Amended Complaint, they attempted to cure earlier pleading deficiencies by alleging a generally accepted design standard for combined sewer systems and asserting that the June 2021 rainfall did not exceed that standard.
LAW
Under Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), governmental agencies are broadly immune from tort liability when engaged in a governmental function. Plaintiffs therefore had to plead facts bringing their claim within the Sewage Disposal System Event (SDSE) exception.
To invoke the SDSE exception, a plaintiff must plausibly allege:
1. the defendant was an appropriate governmental agency;
2. the sewage disposal system had a defect;
3. the agency knew or should have known of the defect;
4. the agency, having legal authority to do so, failed to take reasonable steps in a reasonable time to repair/correct/remedy the defect; and
5. the defect was a substantial proximate cause of the sewage disposal event and resulting damage.
Under the lease GLWA — not the City — had authority over defects in leased regional facilities.
DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS
Capacity Defect (Detroit Defendants)
The court held Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged a capacity defect. Unlike prior pleadings, the Third Amended Complaint identified a generally accepted capacity standard, alleged the storm rainfall stayed below that standard, and claimed Defendants knew of the deficiency and failed to expand system capacity.
Freud and Conner Creek Pumping Station Defects (Detroit Defendants)
As to the Detroit Defendants, the court found Plaintiffs could not satisfy the “legal authority” element of the SDSE exception. The lease transferred exclusive authority, control, and repair obligations for the leased regional facilities — including the Freud and Conner Creek stations — to GLWA.
GLWA’s Motion
For the capacity defect, the same reasoning that saved the claim against the Detroit Defendants also applied to GLWA — and perhaps more strongly, because the rainfall gauge was within GLWA’s service area.
To the extent GLWA tried to incorporate the Detroit Defendants’ arguments, those arguments did not fit GLWA because the core point was that GLWA, not the Detroit Defendants, held repair authority.
CONCLUSION
The court granted in part and denied in part the Detroit Defendants’ motion and denied GLWA’s motion entirely:
GLWA:
Motion denied in full, so Plaintiffs’ claims based on the capacity defect and the two pumping-station defects may proceed against GLWA.
Detroit
The Detroit Defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED with respect to the Capacity Defect and granted in all other respects; and the GLWA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied in its entirety.
ZALMA OPINION
Because the complaint omitted three critical allegations to state a viable claim:
1. whether the system failed to meet generally accepted design standards for similarly-situated municipalities,
2. whether the storm was of a magnitude above or below the capacity that a system built to generally accepted standards could have handled; and
3. the how or why the system should have had an increased capacity.
GLWA must go to trial and the city is immune.
(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://Cwww.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 ...
Attempt at Intervention Fails
Post number 5366
GEICO Requires Commendation and Emulation for its Action Against Fraud Perpetrators
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-sued-defendants-submitting-thousands-claims-zalma-esq-cfe-k4mdc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Government Employees Insurance Co., et. al. v. Tarakchyan D.C., et al., Civil No. 24-cv-6952 (ZNQ)(JTQ), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (May 29, 2026) GEICO sued medical-provider defendants for allegedly submitting thousands of fraudulent insurance charges for unnecessary treatment.
FACTS:
Air Wolf, a non-party defendant in a separate New York auto-accident case involving one of the same claimants, moved to intervene in order to access discovery and settlement materials and oppose confidentiality restrictions.
ISSUE:
Whether Air Wolf was entitled to intervene in GEICO’s federal fraud action under Rule 24, either as of right or permissively.
LEGAL STANDARD
Intervention is ...
Police Chief’s Guilty Verdict Affirmed
Post number 5365
Cumulative Evidence Sufficient to Prove Fraud
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/conspiring-burn-vehicle-insurance-money-crime-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-raisc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In United States of America v. Christopher Filline, No. 25-50049, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (June 1, 2026) Christopher Filline, the police chief of Castroville, Texas, reported that his wife’s Lincoln Navigator had been stolen.
In truth, the vehicle had actually been burned on a remote road two days earlier. The government presented evidence that Filline was under serious financial strain, that the Navigator needed expensive repairs, and that Filline repeatedly said he wanted someone to “get rid of” it. According to witness testimony, Filline enlisted Ambrose Rymers, who in turn recruited his cousin Oscar Hernandez to take the vehicle and burn it.
After the vehicle was destroyed, Filline filed a false police report and ...
Arsonist Who Tried to Defraud Insurer Failed to Avoid Jail
Post number 5364
Posted on June 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Arson is a Violent and Dangerous Crime Deserving Serious Punishment
The People of the State of New York v. Zef Gjurashaj, 2026 NY Slip Op 03320, No. 2023-03675, Ind. No. 70463/21, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (May 27, 2026) the defendant owned a restaurant that was destroyed by fire on September 6, 2017. Prosecutors alleged that he and a codefendant conspired to intentionally set the fire in order to obtain financial benefit.
At the time of the fire, the defendant’s wife was present in the restaurant, and the indictment alleged that she was not a participant in the crime. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree arson, second-degree conspiracy, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree insurance fraud, and fifth-degree criminal tax fraud.
LAW
The appellate court applied several key legal principles:
1. Preservation doctrine (CPL ...
