Biden provided the Postal Service with funding to purchase 60,000 “Next Generation Delivery Vehicles” (NGDVs) from defense contractor Oshkosh. Oshkosh has never produced an electric truck and it is obvious why Biden avoided other more established EV manufacturers. Congress approved $3 billion to spend on this $10 billion project derived from the Inflation Reduction Act – the largest guise for climate spending in US history. Out of that $3 BILLION, only 93 vehicles have been delivered since 2022. Countless issues have been reported with these NGDVs from leaks to airbags. Worse, Oshkosh was never equipped to handle the production of 3,000 vehicles, and has stated that they have only been able to produce ONE truck per day. They are now working to refine their manufacturing to create 80 trucks per day. Again, there were other avenues and established factories. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/postal-truck-ev-fail-3b-govt-waste/

https://babylonbee.com/news/by-2035-all-california-vehicles-to-be-replaced-by-little-tikes-cozy-coupes?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email

Lose if You Fail to Respond to Motion for Summary Disposition INSURERS FIND FRAUDSTERS ARE OFTEN INCOMPETENT Post 4943 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lose-you-fail-respond-motion-summary-disposition-zalma-esq-cfe-rhstc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. In Chris Kallco v. Melissa Lynn Pugh, Chris Kallco, and Precise MRI Of Michigan, LLC v. Citizens Insurance Company Of The Midwest and Melissa Lynn Pugh, No. 368156, Court of Appeals of Michigan (October 30, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute. In a consolidated first-party and third-party no-fault action, plaintiff appealed from two orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, including the fraud of the plaintiff. FACTUAL BACKGROUND After a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiff and Pugh. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries from the accident. A year after the accident, plaintiff brought a negligence claim against Pugh, alleging that, because of Pugh’s negligence, plaintiff sustained “severe permanent and progressive personal injuries and serious impairment of a body function, including but not necessarily limited to: Head, Neck, Back, Shoulders ….” Plaintiff also brought a claim against Citizens for PIP benefits, including medical expenses, work loss, and replacement services. Pugh moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff could not meet his burden of showing that he sustained a threshold injury under the no-fault act and, therefore, he could not maintain his negligence claim against her. Shortly after Pugh filed her motion, Citizens filed its own motion arguing that plaintiff made material misrepresentations to Citizens regarding the extent of his injuries, which rendered him ineligible for benefits under the statute. The trial court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained a serious impairment of body function and therefore summary disposition in favor of Pugh was appropriate. With regard to Citizens’ motion, the trial court found “that absolutely no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff knowingly made numerous materially false statements in his claims for PIP benefits relative to his alleged injuries and physical restrictions” arising out of the car accident. THRESHOLD INJURY Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff met the serious-impairment threshold. However, plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion for summary disposition made it impossible for him to support his argument. The Plaintiff tried to use the defendants evidence as support against the motions. The attempt failed. The objectively manifested requirement means that plaintiffs must introduce evidence that generally requires medical testimony. Pugh presented objective medical records indicating that there was no physical basis for plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony only set forth mere subjective complaints of pain. Because plaintiff cannot show a factual dispute as to whether he suffered an objectively manifested impairment, he failed to satisfy the threshold serious-impairment requirement. FRAUDULENT INSURANCE ACT A person who presents or causes to be presented an oral or written statement, including computer-generated information, as part of or in support of a claim for payment or another benefit knowing that the statement contains false information concerning a fact or thing material to the claim commits a fraudulent insurance act that is subject to the penalties imposed by statute. An individual commits a “fraudulent insurance act” when: 1 the person presents or causes to be presented an oral or written statement, 2 the statement is part of or in support of a claim for no-fault benefits, and 3 the claim for benefits was submitted to the to the insurer or the state, further, 4 the person must have known that the statement contained false information, and 5 the statement concerned a fact or thing material to the claim. As to both motions for summary disposition, plaintiff failed to show that any genuine issue of material facts exists. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. ZALMA OPINION As I get older the competence of those who attempt to defraud insurers gets less and less competent. Kallco is an example of the lack of competence. He claimed all kinds of injuries and inability to work or play with his children and, when faced with a competent defense, he ignored the motions, failed to respond, and when he lost he appealed claiming the motions against him gave enough evidence to raise a issue of fact. What a waste of the court’s time and I must ask why, with such convincing evidence, no criminal charges were brought. (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 Sorry about the delay in posting. I’m recovering from pneumonia and spending most of the last week in bed with pills, Kleenex, coughing and sleep which I couldn’t get in the hospital. Should be act in shape next week but doctors make no promises.

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/americas-middle-class-in-2024-aging-vehicles-300-carts-of-groceries-and-mountains-of-credit-card-debt/

https://medforth.biz/crazy-endeavour-leftist-uk-govt-slammed-for-net-zero-plan-for-military-to-use-electric-vehicles-on-battlefield/

Why insurance companies prefer paintless dent repair for hail damage claims Today, we're diving into the benefits of paintless dent repair, also known as PDR, for dealing with hail damage and why insurance companies are big fans of this method. First off, PDR is a cost-efficient approach that saves on labor and materials, cutting down expenses compared to traditional repair methods. It's a streamlined process that avoids the need for repainting or replacing parts, making it quicker and more resource friendly. One key Advantage is how PDR preserves the original paint of your vehicle, keeping it in pristine condition and maintaining its resale value. By not having to repaint entire panels, you save money and ensure your car holds its worth over time. This technique is non-invasive, using specialized tools to massage dents out from the inside without affecting the structural Integrity of your vehicle. Insurance companies love PDR for its efficiency in restoring vehicles quickly, reducing claim costs and helping policy holders get back on the road faster. It's a win-win, as it not only saves money but also aligns with sustainable practices by cutting down on waste and carbon emissions. With PDR, you can ensure high quality repairs without the need for traditional bodywork, contributing to a greener automotive industry overall. Visit hail damage repair page here https://www.coloradopdr.com/hail-damage-repair-denver/

GIVE UP YOUR VEHICLES, HEATING & A/C, AND CLOTHING,... "WALK, NAKED FOR THE CLIMATE!!!!!"....💩💥 https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/169/238/500/original/65b200d3295a9200.png

When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwt49KRg, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggwkMJ_U and at https://lnkd.in/gbFpkHtK and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. When Rejected in Writing no UM/UIM Coverage Post 4939 Karina Monasterio appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive Express Insurance Company on Progressive’s complaint for declaratory judgment and Monasterio’s counterclaim against Progressive, and in favor of Rasier-DC, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. on her crossclaim against those defendants. In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Karina Monasterio, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier – DC, LLC, No. 24-11256, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (November 18, 2024) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the USDC. FACTS Progressive sued for declaratory judgment. Monasterio counterclaimed seeking a declaration that Florida’s TNC Act required Progressive, Rasier-DC, and Uber to provide uninsured motorist coverage for her accident. Florida’s TNC Act required insurance coverage may be maintained by the TNC, the TNC driver, or the TNC vehicle owner, or it may be provided by a combination of their policies. FLORIDA UM/UIM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS Florida Statutes provide that no motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto. Neither Rasier-DC nor any other named insured paid the premium for uninsured motorist coverage. THE APPEAL The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the statutory text is clear. The policy was not issued for any “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” registered or garaged in Florida. So, the requirements of the statute did not apply. Because statute did not require uninsured motorist coverage for the auto insurance policy the TNC Act did not. ZALMA OPINION It is always important for a court to read the language of the applicable statute and the policy to determine coverage on an automobile insurance policy. Here the TNC, Raiser-DC rejected UM/UIM coverage and coverage was clearly not required by the statute. The only question I have is why the parties thought it was worth their time and effort to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. (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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

HEY BIDEN F"K AROUND AND FIND OUT... Footage from last night’s Russian Ballistic Missile Attack on the City of Dnipro, shows that the Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry-Vehicle (MIRV) used, equipped to either an Intermediate-Range or Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, contained at least 6 Conventionally-Armed Warheads.

Radiation from an electric vehicle during charging—it's hard to imagine what those standing nearby might be exposed to. The radiation they encounter, a silent and invisible threat.