Insurers Are Sufficiently Sophisticated to Write Any Exclusion it Desired
Posted on July 27, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Public Policy May Not Change Insurance Policy Wording
If Insurer Wanted to Exclude Charges of Sex Trafficking It Can Do So
Post 5410
In Samsung Fire And Marine Insurance Co., LTD, v. RI Settlement Trust; Ace Property And Casualty Insurance Company; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company; Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, No. 61 EAP 2024, No. J-65-2025, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (July 21, 2026).
The question presented was:
Does Pennsylvania have an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking-as found regarding Schedule I controlled substances in Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004), and as evinced by the state’s anti-trafficking law, 18 Pa.[C.S.] § 3011(a)- such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking?
This case arises out of four separate civil complaints in which the respective plaintiffs (“Underlying Plaintiffs”) alleged that, as minors, they were victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the Roosevelt Inn.
LEGAL ISSUES
Under Pennsylvania law, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is determined by comparing the four corners of the insurance policy with the four corners of the complaint.
DISCUSSION:
The insurers argued that public policy barred coverage for losses arising from an insured’s criminal acts involving Schedule I controlled substances.
ANALYSIS:
The Court stressed that insurers are sophisticated parties capable of drafting exclusions for trafficking-related, criminal-conduct, abuse, or similar risks if they choose to do so.
CONCLUSION:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that neither the duty to defend nor the duty to indemnify is abrogated on public-policy grounds merely because the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking.
ZALMA OPINION
Although it is a crime in Pennsylvania traffic sex it does not bar coverage even if the policy language otherwise triggered those duties. The Supreme Court found that neither the duty to defend nor the duty to indemnify is abrogated on public-policy grounds merely because the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking. Simply alleging that the insured violated a state law does not establish a public policy that creates an unwritten exclusion.
(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://lnkd.in/gNsmiBcd. Go to X @bzalma; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Insurers Are Sufficiently Sophisticated to Write Any Exclusion it Desired
Posted on July 27, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Public Policy May Not Change Insurance Policy Wording
If Insurer Wanted to Exclude Charges of Sex Trafficking It Can Do So
Post 5410
In Samsung Fire And Marine Insurance Co., LTD, v. RI Settlement Trust; Ace Property And Casualty Insurance Company; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company; Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, No. 61 EAP 2024, No. J-65-2025, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (July 21, 2026).
The question presented was:
Does Pennsylvania have an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking-as found regarding Schedule I controlled substances in Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004), and as evinced by the state’s anti-trafficking law, 18 Pa.[C.S.] § 3011(a)- such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such ...
Immigrant Tries Arson for Profit
Post 5409
Posted on July 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insurer Understood that an Insured Intent on Arson Fraud Would Not Limit his Fraud to the Act Itself
Since arriving in the United States, the Russian had done well financially. He owned a million-dollar piece of real estate and three gas stations. He was in the jewelry business, wholesaling jewelry he would get on consignment from immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after he was settled. He was, however, cash poor. What he needed was quick cash.
He decided to burn his house down.
To profit from his action he increased his homeowners ...
Specific Jurisdiction is Related to an Activity Conducted Within the Forum State.
Post 5408
Posted on July 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Changan Chu, No. 14-25-00965-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (July 21, 2026) NJM issued an automobile insurance policy in New Jersey to Changan Chu while Chu was a New Jersey resident.
Chu was injured in an auto-pedestrian collision in Harris County, Texas, allegedly caused by an uninsured driver. Chu sued the driver and NJM, seeking a declaration that his UM/UIM coverage was in force and provided $300,000 in limits. NJM filed a special appearance supported by affidavit evidence showing it was a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, had no offices, agents, employees, advertising, registration, or insurance business in Texas, and did not insure any person, property, or risk located in Texas. Chu did not file evidence opposing the special appearance.
LAW
A Texas court may exercise ...
