Insurer’s Insistence on Keeping Premium Defeats Claim of Voidance for Breach of Condition
Posted on September 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4845
After USAA Learned Ford Had Sold The BMW, It Did Not Attempt To Revoke The Policy And Refund The Amount Ford Had Paid For Coverage and was Estopped or Waived it Right to Revoke Coverage
In Lisa White v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated, et al., No. CV-24-00378-PHX-KML, United States District Court, D. Arizona (September 10, 2026) Dezmond Ford purchased a USAA automobile policy covering a 2013 BMW for August 7 through December 27, 2020, and apparently paid the full premium.
Ford later sold the BMW to Jack Eddia without notifying USAA, but kept the policy active to avoid a coverage gap. Eddia obtained title and registration and, on November 1, 2020, struck and killed Lisa White’s son while driving the BMW. USAA had accepted premiums through the accident date and, after learning of the sale, did not refund the premium attributable to the post-sale period. White obtained a $3.75 million judgment against Eddia under a Damron agreement and, as Eddia’s assignee, sued USAA for breach of contract and bad faith.
LAW
Arizona generally requires an insurer relying on an insured’s breach of a notice condition to prove actual prejudice. The statute A.R.S. § 20-1105 makes a property insurance contract enforceable only for the benefit of a person with an insurable interest, defined as an actual, lawful, and substantial economic interest in preserving the insured property. Arizona waiver and estoppel precedent also bars an insurer from treating a policy as void to deny coverage while treating it as valid to retain premiums.
DISCUSSION
USAA asserted that the policy barred transfer or assignment, Ford breached the policy by failing to report the sale, and Ford’s sale extinguished his insurable interest.
White did not rely on any transfer or assignment theory; she argued Eddia was a covered person using a vehicle listed on the declarations and that USAA waived or was estopped from asserting lack of insurable interest because it retained the premiums.
USAA offered only a conclusory declaration that it would have canceled the policy and did not establish actual prejudice. On insurable interest, the court agreed that Ford’s sale generally extinguished his interest and would ordinarily make the policy inapplicable, but held that Arizona precedent prohibited USAA from invoking that defense while retaining the unearned premium.
ANALYSIS
The decisive point was the inconsistency in USAA’s position. Arizona cases establish that an insurer may waive forfeiture or be estopped when it knowingly retains premiums for a period during which it claims the policy was void.
Although the named insured’s lack of an insurable interest favored USAA on the underlying statutory question, USAA retained the premium attributable to coverage after Ford sold the vehicle and did not explain what that premium purchased if the policy had ceased to provide any coverage.
Because the relevant facts were undisputed, waiver or estoppel could be resolved as a matter of law. By contrast, USAA’s notice defense failed at summary judgment because it lacked legal and factual proof of actual prejudice.
Because White is not pursuing these theories, USAA’s arguments addressed to them are irrelevant. USAA is not entitled to summary judgment on claims or theories White is not pursuing.
There is no dispute that after USAA learned Ford had sold the BMW, it did not attempt to revoke the policy and refund the amount Ford had paid for coverage between August and December. immediately upon the sale of the BMW.
USAA is either estopped or it waived the insurable interest requirement by retaining the portion of premium attributable to the period after the sale of the BMW. USAA’s motion for summary judgment is denied and White’s motion is granted.
CONCLUSION
The court denied USAA’s motion for summary judgment and granted White’s motion for partial summary judgment. It held that USAA could not rely on the lack-of-insurable-interest defense after retaining the post-sale premiums.
ZALMA OPINION
The competence of the underwriting and claims departments of major insurers is difficult to find. Once the BMW was sold the insured had no interest in the vehicle and the policy should have been void but the seller continued to pay the premium. Once USAA learned of the sale it knew, or should have known, its insured had no interest in the vehicle and should have given notice the policy was void as of the date of the sale and returned premium paid after the sale. It did not and as a result – for a few dollars of premium – USAA exposed itself to pay a multimillion dollar judgment.
(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 ...
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...
