Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and Mainspring submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance Company (GNIC). GNIC denied coverage, arguing the loss resulted from long-term deterioration and excluded causes. The federal district court granted summary judgment to GNIC, finding the loss reasonably foreseeable and almost certain to occur.
GNIC reviewed the loss and retained an engineering firm, Nelson Forensics LLC (“Nelson”), to investigate the damage and its cause. Nelson claimed the deterioration was largely around the space Star Fisheries leased, and the damage was consistent with exposure to a corrosive environment for years or even decades. Nelson also concluded that while Star Fisheries’ water and salt usage “may have exacerbated” damage to a different portion of the building, some of the other damage could not be attributed to the use of water and salt.
Ultimately, GNIC denied coverage for Mainspring’s loss, explaining that the loss was the result of “poor/inadequate soil preparation and compaction, settlement, and long-term corrosion,” and concluding the loss was within the policy’s inherent-vice, faulty-workmanship, settling, and wear-and-tear exclusions. Mainspring requested that GNIC reconsider the denial.
LAW
Arizona recognizes that all-risk insurance policies cover only fortuitous losses, even if the policy does not expressly say so. Insurance exists to cover risk, not certainty. Because Arizona had not previously defined “fortuitous loss,” the Court adopted the Restatement definition: a fortuitous event is one that, so far as the parties are aware, depends on chance.
ANALYSIS
The Arizona Supreme Court rejected an objective “reasonable foreseeability” test. It reasoned that many insured risks are foreseeable; if foreseeability alone defeated coverage, all-risk insurance would lose much of its purpose.
Instead, the proper test is subjective and focuses on what the insured actually knew when coverage attached.
LACK OF FORTUITY
A loss is not fortuitous merely because the insured knew there was a risk, even a serious one.
It becomes non-fortuitous only if the insured knew the loss-causing event had already occurred, was already underway, or was certain to occur because no meaningful contingency remained.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that insurers can protect themselves through underwriting, premiums, and express exclusions. Courts should not rewrite policies to deny coverage for risks the insurer could have excluded more clearly.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court found consistent Arizona insurance law and public policy national authority, especially cases rejecting hindsight-based determinations of inevitability. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning to the extent it suggested that reasonable foreseeability can make a loss non-fortuitous.
CONCLUSION
The Arizona Supreme Court answered the certified question by holding:
A loss is non-fortuitous only when the insured knew, at the time coverage attached, that the loss-causing event had already occurred, was already in progress, or was certain to occur because no material contingency remained between the facts known to the insured and the loss-causing event.
The standard is subjective, focusing on the insured’s knowledge at the time of contracting — not on hindsight or objective foreseeability.
ZALMA OPINION
When an insured is aware of a risk that would cause an injury or where the injury had already occurred before the inception of the policy, it is not fortutious, was already in progress, or was certain to occur because no material contingency remained.
(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. lma; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/
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...
