CORRUPT JUDGES & WEAPONIZED LEGAL SYSTEM MUST END NOW! Special Guest: Michael Pendleton, Esq. Despite the FACT that our entire "government" is an illegitimate #Corporation, operating #Fraudulently under "Maritime Admiralty Law," it's hard to get most people to realize this FACT! If you choose to continue under this corrupt system then you must know.... The "Grand Jury" belongs to the AMERICAN PEOPLE - NOT "government" The AMERICAN PEOPLE have every right to enforce the law, even against government #Criminals! LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN..... THE GRAND JURY BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! As does our corporate "Law Enforcement" (Technically) If a grand jury of the AMERICAN PEOPLE hand down a conviction of some government #Criminal, it is the DUTY of every law enforcement agent in the United States to see that the convicted party is both ARRESTED and then put in PRISON! And ANY LEO who fails to do his sworn duty (TO THE PEOPLE, NOT the Corporation) he needs to be FIRED first of all.... And then PROSECUTED and sent to prison himself! Because what we currently have is a standing "Foreign ARMY" on US Soil", and just because they claim themselves to be "Police" and "Sheriffs" it does NOT change this FACT! They are currently serving at the pleasure of CRIMINALS, and not the American People, as their oath REQUIRES them to do The real issue in this country is #Corrupt #LawEnforcement who do not do not uphold their #Oath of office AND view the American People as their ENEMY, instead of AS THEIR BOSSES, The way it truly is! Of course some prison time can be handed to THEM as well! And this would be cured real friggin quick! And as far as "Lifetime appointments" of #Judges goes... THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PEOPLE AS WELL! The American PEOPLE are the bosses here folks! NO LAW or any "tradition" or "Constitution" or "Legal System" can change that FACT! If THE PEOPLE want these MF's removed, then THEY ARE GONE! THE PEOPLE are the deciding vote in ANY SITUATION! And it is high time that we reclaim our position as the FINAL DECISION MAKERS! (In ANY decision) THE PEOPLE have "Veto Power" over ANY "government" law or decision! After all, these people (supposedly) work for US! Just like government secrecy, and their constant, criminal, claim of "National Security" where they refuse to show THE PEOPLE (Their BOSSES) what they are doing! It does NOT work that way folks! EMPLOYEES are not allowed to keep secrets about their activities from THE PEOPLE who employee them! I mean they can TRY..... But the corrective action for this is to FIRE THEM IMMEDIATELY every time they try it! Living under TYRANT SCUM who operates in secrecy, and IN YOUR NAME is unacceptable!!! The problem is really YOU! Your lack of holding these scumbags accountable has led us here! And it's time to take corrective action on that front RIGHT NOW! Your supposed "government" employees JUST TRIED TO MURDER YOU! I would have to say that it's time to re-evaluate their employment, as well as their ability to continue sucking wind! Every last one responsible for this attempt, at the very least, should die in prison! The "government" has grown this corrupt and #Evil because YOU allowed them to! It's 110% OUR FAULT! Now is the time to ADMIT OUR FAILURE, and take immediate corrective actions "Begging our own EMPLOYEES to uphold the law and to be accountable" to the PEOPLE who EMPLOYEE THEM is unacceptable! YOU are the BOSS! It is time that "government" is let in on that little secret! https://youtu.be/-NKBWfyX3Qk

If Debt Stops Growing, The Dollar Fails Immediately | Phil Low https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYaOyDtAOm4&list=TLPQMDYxMjIwMjSZQEDkX-8gew&index=5

Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - December 1, 2024 ZIFL Volume 28 No. 22 Post 4939 Read the full article at Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdfand at https://zalma.com/blog. 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 https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf 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: The EUO is a Material Condition Precedent A Key Tool in the Effort to Reduce Fraud Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO I spoke recently at the Conference of the Southern California Fraud Investigators Association on the Examination Under Oath as a tool to help insureds prove their losses and what happens when an insured fails or refuses to testify. This case emphasizes the purpose of my talk. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Thanksgiving Wishes from the Zalma Family My family and I have much to be thankful for this year. My first born daughter, Stephanie Zalma, continues to care for my wife 24 hours a day 7 days a week with love and patience as Thea continues as Nana to our two grandchildren and the loving mother of our three children. After receiving a new Aortic Heart Valve I am personally in good health, walking about 25 miles a week. Exercising my, apparently unusual mode of retirement, I work only six to eight hours a day doing what I love the most, writing about insurance, insurance claims, insurance law and acting as an insurance claims consultant and expert witness. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf More McClenny Moseley & Associates Issues This is ZIFL’s thirty eighth 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 may be criminal to profit from insurance claims relating to hurricane damage to the public of the state of Louisiana. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Ethical Behavior & Insurance Insurance, from the time of its first agreement to the present day has always been a business requiring ethical behavior between the insurer and the insured and between the insured and the insurer. The concept of ethical behavior refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues, all of which are essential to the lawyer. Ethics refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from murder, rape, theft, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that imply virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. There are rights presumed to exist such as those described in the Declaration of Independence submitted to King George of England in 1776 that held: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unalienable rights also include the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to liberty. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Health Insurance Fraud Convictions Michigan Woman Convicted of $1.4M Health Care Kickback Scheme Mary Smettler-Bolton, 71, of Oakland County, Michigan was convicted November 22, 2024 for her role in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive illegal health care kickbacks. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Mary referred Medicare beneficiaries to several Metro Detroit home health companies in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks paid by the owners and operators of the home health companies. Over the course of four years, she and her co-conspirators caused over $1.4 million of loss to Medicare. Smettler-Bolton was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and receive illegal health care kickbacks and one count of violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. She is scheduled to be sentenced on March 3, 2025, and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy count and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the kickback count. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Read the full article about dozens more convictions at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Convictions of Other Than Health Insurance Fraud Creative Fraudster Guilty of $229K Insurance Fraud Schemes Justin Mack, a native of Buffalo, New York, and a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, was sentenced on November 25, 2024 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Mack, an Ohio man was sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay restitution for filing 24 fraudulent claims with multiple insurance companies, totaling more than $229,000. An extensive investigation uncovered Mack’s pattern of submitting altered documentation, falsified claims, and using other people’s identities to fraudulently secure payouts from multiple insurance companies. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf The Examination Under Oath Is Not Part of a Judicial Process Although the EUO is a formal proceeding it is not part of a judicial process nor is it subject to the rules set out by codes of civil procedure. There is no right to object to questions and never a judge present to rule on the objections. The testimony at the EUO is required to be presented in accordance with the obligation imposed on an insured to deal fairly and in good faith with the insurer. Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf Barry Zalma 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. Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; https://www.zalma.com; https://zalma.com/blog. He publishes daily articles at https://zalma.substack.com, Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ to consider more than 50 volumes written by Barry Zalma on insurance and insurance claims handling. 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

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/supreme-court-sends-chilling-message-to-gun-owners-comply-or-die-scotus-fails-to-hold-police-accountable-for-shooting-armed-citizens-who-pose-no-threat/

NASA WIRE FAILS - TABOO CONSPIRACY - FLAT EARTH ... [PUBLISHED TODAY] https://old.bitchute.com/video/dPYny3gwoX5S/

EUO is a Material Condition Precedent Claim Properly Denied for Refusal to Testify at EUO Post 4936 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/euo-material-condition-precedent-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-exccc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. See the full video at and at Erin Hughes appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) on her causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith arising after Farmers’ denial of Hughes’s property insurance claim because she refused to testify at a second examination under oath (EUO). In Erin Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B331168, California Court of Appeals (November 8, 2024) the condition precedent was enforced. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hughes is the owner of real property in Malibu (the property). In December 2020, Hughes obtained an insurance policy to cover the property for fire loss through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Also in December 2020, Hughes obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Farmers to cover perils other than fire, including losses due to theft (the policy). One month later, in January 2021, the property sustained significant fire damage. Hughes contacted Farmers, which advised her that fire loss was not covered by her Farmers policy, and she would have to pursue any such claim through her FAIR Plan policy. Unhappy, on January 21, 2021, Hughes tendered a theft claim under the Farmers policy, asserting in excess of $2 million worth of personal property was stolen from the property. Farmers ultimately denied the claim on January 5, 2022, on the ground that Hughes failed to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation, including by failing to participate in a second examination under oath as required by the policy. Hughes’s Complaint Against Farmers One week after the denial of her claim, Hughes sued Farmers and alleged Farmers demanded “duplicative, onerous and/or unnecessary” documentation of stolen items. Further, she alleged Farmers subjected her to “two confrontational, accusatory and grueling examinations under oath.” Hughes alleged her second examination under oath had been “suspended due to [her] medical condition,” but Farmers disregarded her condition and demanded a third examination. Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment Farmers moved for summary judgment contending it properly denied Hughes’s theft claim based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation of her claim as well as her material misrepresentations in obtaining the Farmers policy. In May 2021, as part of Farmers’ theft claim investigation, Hughes participated in an examination under oath. During the examination, Hughes’s counsel informed the Farmers attorney he had just sent more than 40 additional receipts that the attorney would be receiving shortly. Recognizing they would not have time to go through the new items that day and the examination would need to continue on a future date, the Farmers attorney proposed “continu[ing] to work with one another to identify what’s missing.” In response, Hughes and her counsel agreed, with Hughes stating she would be happy to get “every single thing that you need and I’ll send it to my attorney right away.” In October 2021, a second session of the examination under oath was held regarding documentation Hughes had produced during and after the first session. Hughes appeared remotely with counsel and before any questions were asked of her, she objected to a further examination. Hughes accused the Farmers attorney of interrogating her “like a fucking criminal” and stated, “if you want to take my deposition . . . you are going to take a second deposition in court, and that’s going to be a formal deposition.” Hughes’s remote connection then cut out, and her counsel indicated she would not proceed with the examination. Farmers informed Hughes that it was denying coverage based on her failure to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation and particularly her refusal to proceed with the second examination under oath. Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment and Denial of Hughes’s Continuance Request and Motion for New Trial The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers. Noting an insurer has “an absolute right” to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath “as long as the insurer exercises the right reasonably,” the court determined Hughes had not shown Farmers acted unreasonably. The court concluded summary judgment was appropriate “based solely on failure to cooperate.” DISCUSSION The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute that Hughes’s failure to participate in an examination under oath constituted a material breach of the policy; accordingly, Farmers was excused from having to pay on Hughes’s claim. The right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry is reasonable as a matter of law. An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy. Because Hughes refused to cooperate with Farmers’ investigation by participating in and completing her examination under oath, she cannot establish her own performance under the policy. Breach of Implied Covenant Claim The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on general contract law and the long-standing rule that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. Hughes’s claim for bad faith fails as a matter of law. ZALMA OPINION Wildfires tend to destroy everything. That is why insurers are unwilling to write fire insurance in Malibu and other areas prone to wildfires and obtain fire insurance from the Fair Plan, an organization designed to cover uninsurable risks. Because of the destruction done by a wildfire or a dwelling fire a $2 million dollar theft loss after a fire is questionable and a good reason to take a thorough EUO. Farmers tried to do so and Hughes refused without reason after admitting she left open much investigation elements at the agreed conclusion of the first session and an agreement to a second only to refuse. (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

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/pentagon-fails-7th-straight-audit-in-a-row-cant-account-for-824-billion-budget-its-time-they-were-abolished/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/pentagon-fails-seventh-straight-financial-audit-billions-defense/

Bad Faith Set Up Fails Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-faith-set-up-fails-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-jllxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Inadequate Information Made Refusal to Pay Policy Limits Not Bad Faith INADEQUATE MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION USED TO CAUSE INSURER TO REFUSE SETTLEMENT DEMAND Post 4930 Kara Flick appealed from the judgment after a jury rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Flick contends the judgment should be reversed due to juror misconduct. In KARA FLICK v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, B330507, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division (November 5, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute. FACTUAL HISTORY After sustaining injuries in an automobile accident caused by Francisco Reyes, Jr., Flick had her attorney send Reyes's insurer, the United Services Automobile Association (USAA), a letter explaining the severity of her injuries and an authorization for the release of her medical records. Flick's attorney followed up with a settlement demand two months later, requesting that USAA pay Flick the entirety of Reyes's $100,000 policy limit in exchange for a release of liability. Attached to the demand was a single medical record from Flick's neurologist. USAA investigated Flick's claim and determined it did not have sufficient information to accept or reject her demand. Flick then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Reyes. The jury found in her favor and awarded nearly $1.7 million in damages. Flick, with an assignment from the Reyes, sued USAA for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. TRIAL At trial, a USAA claims adjustor admitted that Reyes was fully at fault for the accident with Flick. Reyes could therefore be exposed to liability in excess of his policy limits-if Flick provided sufficient documentation to support her claim. USAA's expert on insurance claims handling and another of its claims service managers both agreed with the supervisor that Flick's authorization was invalid and inadequate to allow USAA to obtain Flick's medical records. USAA needed additional records before it could determine the value of Flick's claim. Those records could have included the medical bills Flick provided to her own insurance company, the multiple doctor's notes she had excusing her from work, or the thumb drive recording her purported speech problems, all of which were entered into evidence at her personal injury trial. Because they were not provided to USAA, it was "very difficult to place a value on" Flick's claim. Flick's expert testified that USAA's handling of the settlement demand "was clearly unreasonable." Flick also did not respond to USAA's requests for additional information. By a vote of nine to three, the jury found that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand of USAA and rejected her claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court polled the jury, and each juror confirmed their vote. DISCUSSION The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Flick's new trial motion. USAA successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by showing there is no reasonable probability that the juror, D.C.'s misconduct by not explaining he did not hear all of the adjuster's testimony, actually harmed Flick. Much of the adjustor's testimony consisted of facts regarding his communications with Flick's attorney - facts that were undisputed. What was disputed-whether Flick's settlement demand was reasonable-was the subject of other witness testimony, including USAA's expert on insurance claims handling, its supervising claims service manager, Flick's personal injury attorney, and her expert witness on insurance claims handling. What the admitted evidence showed was that D.C. confirmed multiple times that he voted that Flick did not make a reasonable settlement demand: Based on this record there was no reasonable probability that D.C.'s alleged juror misconduct actually harmed Flick. ZALMA OPINION The tort of bad faith arose from abuse by insurers on those they insured. Since its adoption in California about three quarters of a century ago, the abuse has been turned on to insurers. Ms. Flick's counsel placed a demand for settlement on USAA that it could not reasonably and in good faith to its insured, Reyes, because it was incomplete and inadequately supported and forced Flick and Reyes go through a trial where she received an uncollectible judgment against Reyes in hopes of a gigantic bad faith judgment. After much litigation and USAA spending a great deal to defend itself she received the $100,000 policy limit. USAA was punished but neither Flick nor her lawyers profited from the scheme or the appeal. (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