Failure to Immediately Offer Policy Limits not Bad Faith
Posted on July 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Since the Insurer Offered the Available Policy Limits and Jenkins Failed to Identify Evidence of Bad Faith, the Insurer Is not Liable for an Excess Judgment.
Post 5411
In Hal Jenkins; CLJ Healthcare, LLC v. Prime Insurance Company; Prime Holdings Insurance Services, Inc., d/b/a Claims Direct Access; David McBride; Evolution Insurance Brokers, LC, No. 25-4064, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (July 21, 2026) April Jenkins died after liposuction surgery at CLJ Healthcare, LLC.
Her father, Hal Jenkins, pursued claims against CLJ and negotiated with CLJ’s insurer, Prime Insurance Company. Prime’s policy provided $50,000 in liability coverage per occurrence, reduced by defense costs. Prime later offered the remaining policy limits, but Jenkins rejected the offer.
CLJ subsequently assigned Jenkins its bad-faith claim against Prime and declined to defend the malpractice action, resulting in an uncontested $60 million judgment against CLJ.
LAW:
The Tenth Circuit applied Utah law, under which an insurer owes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insured, including a duty to investigate and evaluate settlement opportunities.
The court predicted that Utah would not ordinarily require an insurer to explain unambiguous policy terms absent ambiguity or fraud. Summary judgment is proper when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
DISCUSSION:
The Tenth Circuit Court rejected each bad-faith theory. Prime had no duty to further explain the policy because CLJ could read the policy and Prime had already provided information showing the $50,000 limit and defense-cost erosion. Prime also did not act unreasonably by waiting for the medical examiner’s report before evaluating settlement, especially because Jenkins had not made a definite offer to settle for the $50,000 limit and later conceded he would not have accepted that amount.
The court further held that Prime had no duty to advise CLJ or the surgeon that they could contribute personal funds to settlement, and Prime’s request for a “full and final settlement” did not impose an improper condition because there was no evidence Jenkins would have accepted the policy limits even under different release language.
ANALYSIS:
Even assuming Prime’s pre-suit conduct could support tort liability under Utah law, Jenkins could not show that Prime’s actions caused the excess judgment because he never made a definite policy-limits demand and admitted he would not have accepted $50,000. The court also treated the policy as controlling because the limits and defense-cost erosion were unambiguous and already communicated, Prime’s alleged failure to further educate CLJ did not create bad faith. Overall, the opinion narrows bad-faith exposure where an insurer tenders available limits and the claimant cannot prove that different conduct would have produced a settlement.
The Tenth Circuit predicted that the Utah Supreme Court wouldn’t ordinarily require an insurer to explain the policy terms absent an ambiguity or evidence of fraud. And Mr. Jenkins also failed to identify any ambiguities in the policy language or suggest that Prime Insurance misrepresented the terms. So Prime Insurance didn’t need to explain the policy terms to CLJ.
CONCLUSION:
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Prime Insurance and Prime Holdings. Because Prime offered the available policy limits and Jenkins failed to identify evidence of bad faith, the insurer could not be held liable for the excess judgment.
In any event, Mr. Jenkins has not pointed to any evidence showing that he would have accepted Prime Insurance’s policy limit to settle with CLJ even if the tender had expressly excluded claims against the nurse. So Prime Insurance’s request for a “full and final settlement” does not support Mr. Jenkins’ claim of bad faith.
ZALMA OPINION
When a medical care provider carried a liability policy with limits of only $50,000 it is obligated to offer the limits if liability is clear. The insurer offered what was left of its limits that was not accepted nor did the plaintiff establish a willingness to accept what was left of the $50,000 policy limit. An insurer has no obligation to pay a settlement if it does not eliminate the insured’s exposure. No demand that was a full and final settlement for the limit could not be accepted and no bad faith existed.
(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.
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...
