Alleged Defamatory Statements Must be Of and Concerning Plaintiffs
Posted on October 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Prove Defamation the Statement Must be Of and Concerning the Plaintiffs
Post 4867
In Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 04-25-00519-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio (October 14, 2026) Michael Moloney and Sergio Cantu appealed from the trial court’s granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) on their defamation claim.
BACKGROUND
Moloney and Cantu sued USAA for defamation, alleging that they are the principals of Informed Roofing & Restoration, LLC (“Informed Roofing”), which is primarily engaged in the residential roofing repair and replacement business, and that an employee or agent of USAA had made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) concerning them.
Specifically, Moloney and Cantu alleged that an employee of USAA, Jackie Johnston, “made false and defamatory statements to the San Antonio Police Department concerning Informed Roofing and its principals.”
Moloney and Cantu alleged that “Johnston’s statements generally accuse[d] [them] of having intentionally damaged the roof of Mr. Scot Lee,” a customer of Informed Roofing and an insured of USAA, “in the context and furtherance of vandalism, insurance fraud, and criminal mischief.”
USAA filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment on Moloney’s and Cantu’s defamation claims. The trial court granted Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment.
TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In its traditional motion for summary judgment, USAA argued that:
(1) the defamation claims brought by Moloney and Cantu are barred by the statute of limitations;
(2) the statements referred to in the police report are privileged; and
(3) the alleged defamatory statements are not “of and concerning” Moloney and Cantu and thus cannot serve as the basis for their defamation claims.
On appeal, Moloney and Cantu argued that USAA failed to prove its entitlement to a traditional summary judgment on any of these grounds.
The Court of Appeals when reviewing a summary judgment, takes as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and the Court of Appeals will indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor.
Questions regarding defamation liability should be submitted to a jury only where a publication is of ambiguous or doubtful import.
USAA argued that the summary judgment evidence shows that the alleged defamatory statement made by its investigator was not of and concerning Moloney and Cantu.
In her declaration, Jackie Johnston stated that she is a senior investigator for USAA and became involved in the investigation of a hail damage claim at an insured’s residence. Johnston stated that she “did not know who caused the damage” or who reported to SAPD that any particular person or company caused the damage.
In her declaration, Jackie Johnston stated that while her investigation determined “that there were legitimate concerns about potential vandalism” to the insured’s roof, she was not able to determine who or what caused the damage to the insured’s roof.
The March 29, 2022 police report does not name Moloney or Cantu or provide any information from which a person acquainted with them would understand that Johnston’s statement about unknown persons referred to Moloney, Cantu, or Informed Roofing.
The Court of Appeals concluded that USAA provided evidence showing that the police reports alleged to contain defamatory statements were not “of and concerning” Moloney and Cantu.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs did not produce any competent controverting evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that the publication of the alleged defamatory statement. The trial court’s summary judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
No one likes to be defamed. However, if the person defamed wishes to sue the publishing the defamatory words, the person needs evidence that the defamatory statements were made about him or her. The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that the statements they claimed to be defamatory were about the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not named or even indicated and the summary judgment was affirmed.
(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://barryzalma.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 Insurance Claims 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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
