How does the SUN "move Northward on the Earth" and then "move Southward on the Earth" when it is supposedly 93 million miles away? The #Truth is that the SUN travels in a #Circuit above our Flat and Stationary Earth! In the summer time it moves to the NORTH and slows down.... In the Winter time it moves SOUTH and speeds up! THIS IS WHY BIRDS "MIGRATE SOUTH FOR THE WINTER!" Do you REALLY believe that birds fly SOUTH because of something that is 93 million miles away? NO..... The birds are intelligent enough to KNOW that our sun is travelling to the South in the winter time, and they are FOLLOWING IT! The sun will be travelling faster when it is in the SOUTH, so the days will be shorter, because the Sun will travel FASTER ACROSS THE SKY, making the day shorter! It will be colder here in the NORTH because the sun itself is much further away from us, because it has traveled SOUTH, days will be shorter and colder here. Then.... when the SUN travels back NORTH it slows down a bit, making it stay overhead longer, and it's CLOSER to us here in the NORTH. So it's HOT! The days are LONGER and much hotter because the sun is overhead much closer, and is moving much slower. That seems pretty simple! At least it was simple.... BEFORE YOU WERE INDOCTRINATED INTO A #CULT

Occam’s Razor Exclusion for Work Performed by Insured Defeats Claim for Construction Defects Post 4935 Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gT_NsMHv, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqkPHYbp and at https://lnkd.in/gEEXkUe3, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. The question presented to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals was whether a contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers general damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project. APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR The analysis technique that proposes that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Applying Massachusetts law, the district court concluded that Admiral had no duty to defend Tocci in Admiral Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Great American Assurance Company v. Tocci Building Corporation, Tocci Residential LLC, John L. Tocci, Sr., No. 22-1462, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (November 8, 2024) and Tocci appealed. From 2013 to 2016, Tocci was the construction manager for an apartment project owned by Toll JM EB Residential Urban Renewal LLC (“Toll”). There were several work quality issues and delays on the project, and Toll eventually terminated Tocci in March 2016 for alleged mismanagement of the project. Toll sued with allegations regarding instances of defective work leading to property damage. The allegations included defective work by Tocci’s subcontractors resulting in various instances of property damage to non-defective work on the project, including (1) damage to sheetrock resulting from faulty roof work; (2) mold formation resulting from inadequate sheathing and water getting into the building; and (3) damage to a concrete slab, wood framing, and underground pipes resulting from soil settlement due to improper backfill and soil compaction. DUTY TO DEFEND Tocci sought defense and indemnity coverage under the Admiral insurance policies. Admiral denied coverage. The district court granted Admiral’s motion on duty to defend because the damage alleged in Toll’s complaint did not qualify as “property damage” as defined in the policy because the allegations consisted entirely of damage at Tocci’s own project. ANALYSIS The First Circuit considered three steps to the coverage analysis: (1) Do the damages alleged in the action fall within the scope of coverage?; (2) if so, do the exclusions to coverage apply?; and (3) if so, do any exceptions to the exclusions apply? The First Circuit noted that there is a sharp split of authority on whether damage to non-defective work resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work constitutes “property damage” or is caused by an “occurrence.” The First Circuit decided to avoid the issues of what constitutes “property damage” by focusing on the exclusions which were sufficient to resolve the complete dispute. THE HOLDING There are two “Damage to Property” exclusions that provide that there is no coverage for “property damage” to: that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it. The First Circuit, applying Occam’s Razor, focused its analysis on the exclusion it concluded covers the allegations in the Toll complaint. Since the complaint alleges damage resulting from Tocci’s “incorrectly performed” work on the entire project “[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘[Tocci’s] work’ was incorrectly performed on it” refers to the entirety of the project where Tocci was the general contractor charged with supervising and managing the project as a whole. Therefore, the First Circuit concluded that Admiral met its burden of establishing that the Toll action only alleges damage falling within the exclusion and that there was no exception to that exclusion that applied. ZALMA OPINION This is a case of a court applying Occam’s Razor, by picking an easy and obvious solution – the application of an exclusion – and avoiding the problem of different court rulings on coverage about “property damage” and “occurence.” Since the exclusion clearly applied there was no duty to defend. (c) 2024 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 Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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 Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy

Chiropractor Disciplined for Improper Billing Chiropractor Lies to Board and Loses Right to Practice Post 4930 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chiropractor-disciplined-improper-billing-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-4qjdc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. This appeal arises from an attempt by the state of Illinois to impose discipline upon plaintiff Christopher D. Leone, D.C., due to certain improper activities performed as a licensed chiropractor in the state of Illinois. In Christopher D. Leone, D.C. v. The Department Of Financial And Professional Regulation, Division Of Professional Regulation; and Cecilia Abundis, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, No. 4-22-0753, 2024 IL App (4th) 220753-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District (November 6, 2024) the Court of Appeal resolved the multiple claims of the chiropractor. BACKGROUND Leone has practiced as a chiropractor since 1999 and initially practiced in the state of Washington. The matter was resolved pursuant to an informal disposition via stipulation. Leone began practicing in Illinois in 2004, and in 2010 and a consent order was issued pursuant to which Leone admitted to the allegations and was reprimanded with a $5000 fine and a requirement that he undertake 20 hours of continuing education; 10 of those hours were to focus on Medicare billing and insurance coding and another 10 on record keeping. In 2013, the United States alleged that Leone “knowingly and fraudulently” submitted Medicare claims of less than $1000 for one-on-one physical therapy services that were not provided. Following negotiation, the parties entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which Leone pleaded guilty to the one-count information and stipulated to a factual basis for his plea. Shortly after the Medicare fraud charge was filed against Leone, the State filed a five-count complaint alleging multiple violations of the Medical Practices Act of 1987 (Act). During the litigation, Leone applied to renew his chiropractic license. One of the questions on the application asked whether he had been convicted of any criminal offense, state or federal, since July 2011; Leone answered, “No,” failing to document the Medicare fraud conviction. Attempting to explain his federal guilty plea, Leone said that he was unable to modify the language in the plea agreement, as “the time for negotiations had run out” and the plea was a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposition. Leone read the plea agreement line by line and, although he claimed it contained false information, he signed it. ALJ Report and Recommendation The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued his report and recommendation, finding that, pursuant to the guilty plea in the federal case, Leone had admitted that his patients performed physical therapy on their own without supervision. Also, Leone admitted in his plea that entries in patient records indicating that they received hands-on or one-on-one physical therapy were false. Further, the guilty plea established that Leone knowingly submitted claims to Medicare for services that he did not provide. Leone had also billed private insurers numerous times under the same code as Medicare. The conviction also established that he engaged in false billing and false entries in patient records. The ALJ recommended an indefinite suspension of Leone’s license for a minimum of two years. An expert testified that chiropractors who engaged in Medicare fraud violated several tenets of chiropractic ethics. There was a pattern of overcharging for services that were not provided, false notations in patient records to support the false charges, and the submission of false claims to insurance that went on for at least five years. Leone obtained fees by fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and those actions fell below the professional and ethical standards required of chiropractors in Illinois. Leone’s conduct, along with his past disciplinary history, “demonstrate[d] a pattern of behavior that [was] not acceptable.” ANALYSIS It was undisputed that Leone submitted charges under billing code 97110. Leone pled guilty to submitting a false demand for payment upon the United States. In his plea, Leone admitted to billing for services that were not actually provided to his patients as claimed, “and the instruments containing the demands for payment of public money, therefore were false when they were submitted” and “were submitted to Medicare with the knowledge that he did not perform the service charged.” The guilty plea supports the conclusion that Leone knowingly and intentionally submitted claims for reimbursement for services provided under code 97110 where the services did not meet the requirements to be paid under that code. This pattern went on for approximately five years, resulting in 1324 false claims in the amount of $93,900. The Department established a violation of the Act where Leone failed to note the federal conviction on his renewal application. Discipline A review of the initial circuit court order in this matter reveals that it merely recommended that the Department consider probation as a punishment; it did not make a ruling to that effect. There was no abuse of discretion in the discipline imposed. For the reasons stated, the Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and affirm the Director’s decision. ZALMA OPINION Leone successfully committed fraud on the United States, the state of Illinois, and the insurance industry by falsely billing services he did not provide. He pleaded guilty to one count of Federal Health Insurance fraud and then lied to the state of Illinois when he applied to renew his license. With lawyers and retained experts he delayed the sanction for years. The Court of Appeals finally resolved the multiple disputes and applied an appropriate sanction and suspension of his license. He should consider himself lucky that he was not prosecuted criminally by the state and the US Government accepted his plea. (c) 2024 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 Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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

No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith Happy Veterans Day to My Fellow Veterans Some Claims Proper Some Not Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/happy-veterans-day-my-fellow-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ovpec and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Post 4929 Vepo Design Corporation and its officers (collectively, “Vepo”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their breach of contract and bad faith claims against American Economy Insurance Company (“AEIC”). Vepo’s claims relate to AEIC’s denial of coverage following a fire in a laundromat, known as the “Central Laundromat,” which Vepo was developing. In Vepo Design Corporation, et al. v. American Economy Insurance Company, No. 23-55634, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (November 4, 2024) the issues were resolved serially. DECISIONS Business Income The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC on Vepo’s business income claim, which concerns income Vepo contends it would have earned operating the Central Laundromat if the fire had not occurred. AEIC argued that Vepo’s claim for lost income was too speculative given that the Central Laundromat was still under construction and Vepo had not secured additional financing to own and operate it. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Vepo as the non-moving party the Ninth Circuit concluded that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact and that Vepo’s claim for lost business income is not unduly speculative. There is evidence that Vepo was contemplating an arrangement under which it would own and operate the Central Laundromat for a period of time before selling it, and that Vepo later engaged in similar arrangements for other laundromats. Vepo, which was experienced in the laundromat industry, also demonstrated that it had a history of securing financing for its laundromat projects and that it intended to refinance the Central Laundromat once a certificate of occupancy was received. Although Vepo had not secured refinancing for the Central Laundromat as of the time of the fire, Vepo’s Principal Owner stated in her declaration and confirmed at her deposition that it was too early to do so in the project timeline. That Vepo had yet to refinance does not render its claim too speculative as a matter of law and its losses are for a jury to decide. Extra Expense The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AEIC for the extra expenses that Vepo allegedly incurred in storing laundry equipment in a warehouse owned by Vepo’s sister company following the fire. While the policy only required the expense to be incurred, not paid, there was insufficient evidence to create a triable issue over whether the expense was incurred at all. No payment changed hands between the two entities, and there is no accounting record showing that Vepo was liable for the storage amount. When the same person signed as representative of both entities, does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Lost Profits The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Vepo’s claim for lost profits on the prospective sale of the laundromat. Even assuming that such a loss would be covered under the policy, the claim fails because the policy limited coverage to losses that occur within one year of the incident. Vepo’s plan called for it to own and operate the Central Laundromat for at least one year after opening, which would place any hypothetical sale more than a year after the pre-opening fire. Individual Personal Property Claims The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for AEIC on the claims by the individual plaintiffs for their own personal property that was allegedly lost in the fire. As the district court correctly found, Vepo did not identify what individual property was lost or its worth. The individual plaintiffs’ claims were too unsupported to create a triable issue. Bad Faith The Ninth Circuit partially reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Vepo’s bad faith claim, to the extent of the single insurance claim it allowed to go forward-the business income claim. The district court may permit any further motions practice on the bad faith claim as it deems appropriate. However, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the bad faith claim insofar as that claim is premised on any of the other breach of contract claims to which AEIC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There is never a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing if there was no improper denial of coverage under the policy. ZALMA OPINION The importance of this case is the reiteration of the law that there can never be a viable tort of bad faith if there is no improper denial of a claim by breach of the insurance contract. If the one cause of action remaining was breached in bad faith and there was no genuine dispute over coverage, that cause can be brought for bad faith damages. The other decisions of the Ninth Circuit were obvious and well reasoned. (c) 2024 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 Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – November 1, 2024 ZIFL – Volume 28 Number 21 Posted on November 1, 2024 by Barry Zalma Post 4924 See the full video at and at Subscribe to ZIFL at https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud: Pill Mill Doctor’s Conviction Affirmed HEALTH CARE FRAUD CONVICTION AFFIRMED ACTING AS A DR. FEEL GOOD IS A FEDERAL CRIME According to the Sixth Circuit Dr. David Jankowski’s medical clinics relied on several unusual billing and prescription practices, many of which were illegal and Jankowski fraudulently billed Medicare for services he did not provide and prescribed controlled substances to patients whose conditions did not call for such treatment, with some patients unlawfully trafficking their prescribed drugs. In United States Of America v. David Jankowski, M.D., No. 23-1404, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (October 23, 2024) the Sixth Circuit disposed of the fraudsters claims on appeal. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf More McClenny Moseley & Associates Issues This is ZIFL’s thirty sixth installment of the saga of McClenny, Moseley & Associates and its problems with the federal courts in the State of Louisiana and what appears to be an effort to profit from what some Magistrate and District judges indicate may be criminal conduct to profit from insurance claims relating to hurricane damage to the public of the state of Louisiana. 10/24/2024 MMA BANKRUPTCY HEARING TO DECIDE WHETHER TRUSTEE WILL BE APPOINTED Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Injured While Drunk on the Job Gets Workers’ Compensation Benefits An appellate court in New York has upheld a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board in favor of an injured employee of an electrical contractor company because intoxication was not the sole cause of the accident. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Man Bites Dog Story: Fraudsters Arbitration Attempts Stopped Arbitration Stayed for Suspected Chiropractors’ Fraudulent No Fault Medical Claims Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf In Government Employees Insurance Company, (“GEICO”) v. Didier Demesmin, M.D., et al, No. 23-CV-6191 (ARR) (MMH), United States District Court, E.D. New York (October 23, 2024) GEICO sought to enjoin defendants Manuel A. Mendoza, D.C. and Mendoza Chiropractic Office PC (collectively the “Mendoza Defendants”) from pursuing certain “no-fault” insurance collection arbitrations or initiating new collections proceedings during the pendency of this lawsuit. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Health Insurance Fraud Convictions Louisiana Nursing Home Owner to Pay $8.2M for Misusing Assets During Ida Bob Dean Jr a Louisiana nursing home owner and several companies he operated have agreed to an $8.2 million consent judgment to resolve allegations that they misappropriated and misused the assets and income of four nursing homes in Louisiana before and after Hurricane Ida’s landfall in August 2021. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions for taking bribes about insurance fraud. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Convictions of Other Than Health Insurance Fraud Former Lake Forest Agent Convicted On 90 Counts Of Insurance Fraud After Stealing Nearly $200,000 In Premium Payments Karen Marie Dondanville, 56, of Mission Viejo, California, a former Lake Forest insurance agent was convicted on 90 counts of insurance fraud after stealing nearly $200,000 in premium payments. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf The Need to Understand the Mutability of Memory Investigators and lawyers believe what they are told by eye witnesses who describe what he or she says with conviction. However, every professional investigator or litigator must know that memory is not necessarily accurate because very few people have a perfect eidetic (photographic) memory. Memory is a fluid and often unreliable human function. Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf Barry Zalma, Inc., 4441 Sepulveda Boulevard, CULVER CITY CA 90230-4847, 310-390-4455. Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog. Go to Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/; Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ and GTTR at https://gettr.com/@zalma Read the full article and all 18 pages of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ZIFL-11-01-2024.pdf

Who’s on First & in What Percentage Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences Post 4920 Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest. In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved. FACTS After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million. The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini. The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution. Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount. Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000. ANALYSIS In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers. The Other Insurance Clauses Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.” Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis. Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses. In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment. ZALMA OPINION The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest. (c) 2024 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 Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/breaking-supreme-court-6-3-decision-changes-suppressor-landscape-forever-5th-circuit-weighs-impact-video/

https://gunsinthenews.com/breaking-supreme-court-6-3-decision-changes-suppressor-landscape-forever-5th-circuit-weighs-impact-video/

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/breaking-supreme-court-6-3-decision-changes-suppressor-nfa-laws-forever-5th-circuit-weighs-in-video/

https://gunsinthenews.com/breaking-supreme-court-6-3-decision-changes-suppressor-nfa-laws-forever-5th-circuit-weighs-in-video/