The Ranger: The Guy With A Gun In A Knife Fight A lot of people are calling the Ranger the strongest class in the sport, and whilst this is a chunk of an exaggeration, there may be some reality to these claims. The Ranger has absurd ranged harm with bows in combination with their Perks, super vicinity-denial options with bear traps and Quick-Shot, and even innate restoration with Rations. An archer elegance with get entry to to infinite arrows in a sport in which both the protective and evasive alternatives are sparse is certainly terrifying. Everyone having guns in Escape from Tarkov was one thing, but this is completely distinctive. This is exactly why the Ranger works nicely in solo play. Even the most veteran Dark and Darker players still get hit by AI enemies from time to time, but the Ranger's combat loop basically gets rid of that threat. Plus, towards actual gamers, a nicely-placed Ranger can easily fight and win against a three-character squad unmarried-handedly. And, even though their combatants do manage to close the space, Rangers can use their innate movement speed and endure traps to outrun and frustrate their pursuers before finishing them off with a bolt as quickly as they permit their guards down. The Fighter: A True Swiss Army Knife Class Where Rangers are a brilliant solo elegance because of their overall utility in areas, ranged fight and pace, Fighters are properly solo instructions because of their widespread software in all areas. Fighters have proper health, true defense, desirable offense, appropriate survivability, top Perks, proper Skills, and are simply all-round pretty excellent. However, be aware how none of their aspects are described as 'notable' or 'outstanding'. Yes, Fighters are accurate at maximum things, however they may be not clearly the 'high-quality' at some thing in exchange. Their average melee damage is not as right as a Barbarian's, they may be no longer nearly as speedy as a Rogue or Ranger, and that they don't have access to Spells like a Cleric or Wizard does. But, for a solo player, a properly-geared Fighter (each in terms of armor and weapons) will provide them the overall maximum chance of survival against the odds. Now, Fighters can not without problems 1v3 an enemy group, but they will typically stay lengthy sufficient to try to and have the best risk of dwelling to try to escape if they can't. The Cleric: Tons Of Healing In A Game Where Healing Is Sparse And sooner or later, there are Clerics. In wellknown Clerics are excellent solo training for a lot of the identical motives Fighters are. Their offense isn't horrible, their defense is respectable, and that they also can use a protect. But, in which the Cleric excels solely is of their basic survivability and PvE software. Clerics have a mess of spells that deal damage to undead which include Holy Light and their Holy Purification Skill. Not simplest that, but they may be also able to maintain themselves alive plenty longer on common than every other elegance might by the usage of each Lesser Heal and Holy Light. That said, while Clerics are accurate for solo gamers, they still shine the brightest when in a crew due to the fact they are able to heal their harm sellers mid-combat and even revive teammates with a spell. But for anyone simply trying to play on their very own and survive towards enemy squads, a Cleric is a pretty good elegance desire. Why Not Barbarian Or Rogue? And ultimately, it need to be stated that each Barbarian and Rogue can work in solo play, they can even dominate in the proper hands. In fact, with how regularly players see Rogues jogging round by themselves, it'd appear peculiar not to have them on here. But, in phrases of their standard playstyle and available Skills/Perks, Barbarians and Rogues simply war more in solo vs squad play than the other instructions do. A Barbarian's slow interaction velocity, sluggish motion speed, and overall awkward weapon hitboxes make it hard to chase or break out enemy gamers. Meanwhile, the Rogue can sneak up on a player without difficulty or even melt them before they have a hazard to react relying on what number of stabs they get in, but in the event that they get hit even as soon as, they're essentially completed for. They're just lessons that shine so much extra in a group scenario that it would be a chunk silly to simplest use them in solo play. The Fighter in Dark in Darker is largely the Mario-type person in Super Smash Bros Ultimate of this recreation if that makes sense. It's the elegance alternative gamers select to analyze the game earlier than moving directly to the extra robotically unique training. Or, rather, they grow to be sticking with it and coming across the man or woman or class' internal complexities. It's the Ryu from Street Fighter or the Sol Badguy of Guilty Gear, just to provide a few different examples. But, as absolutely everyone who has 'principal'ed' any of those characters in fighting video games will say, just because it's the 'starter' man or woman does not mean that it's horrific, simple, or clean to grasp. So, allow's smash down the Fighter in Dark and Darker and pass over its standard construct. All servers of Dark and Darker Gold Coins on MMOexp.com.

Trial Must Proceed Under Plaintiff’s True Name Fraud Defense Insufficient to Allow Plaintiff to Sue Under Pseudonym Post 4944 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trial-must-proceed-under-plaintiffs-true-name-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-zc7ic/, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. LITIGANTS MUST NOT HIDE THEIR IDENTITY Plaintiff sued State Farm under a pseudonym. The Court subsequently issued an order requiring Plaintiff to proceed using his actual name. Plaintiff appealed that order, and he now seeks to stay the Court’s order while his appeal is pending in James Doe v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 23-cv-04734-JSC, United States District Court, N.D. California (November 26, 2024). BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleged State Farm improperly and in bad faith denied coverage for his claim involving a lost wristwatch that retails at approximately $30,300. He filed his complaint under the pseudonym “James Doe,” insisting a pseudonym was necessary “to protect his privacy, his family, his reputation, and his livelihood, because he has been struggling with mental illnesses.” The Court rescinded its order permitting Plaintiff to proceed anonymously. At a ZOOM hearing the Court informed Plaintiff his actual name appeared on the Zoom screen. Although Plaintiff had yet to file a motion to stay the Court’s order requiring him to proceed under his actual name. The Court denied State Farm’s motion as to the breach of contract and wrongful policy cancellation claims. Jury trial is scheduled to commence in May 2025. DISCUSSION Parties may use pseudonyms in the unusual case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment. Plaintiff based his claim for anonymity on two grounds: 1. Plaintiff argues anonymity is necessary because he has revealed highly sensitive and personal matters about himself, his mental illnesses and physical injuries in the course of the case. Yet, Plaintiff did not identify where in the record those highly sensitive matters are discussed. Plaintiff has not sought to redact any portions of his filings, assuming anything in them may be concealed from the public. So, Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on this theory. 2. Plaintiff argues anonymity is necessary because the accusation of insurance fraud will ruin his reputation for honesty before a jury has passed judgment on his credibility and honesty at trial. Plaintiff states the case involves grave social stigmatization to Plaintiff because he has been accused of committing or seeking to commit insurance fraud. The USDC noted that Plaintiff showed no reasonable probability that an insurer’s material misrepresentation defense transforms a breach of contract claim into a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature, Here, Plaintiff is seeking coverage for a lost wristwatch. If an accusation of insurance fraud were sufficiently stigmatizing to warrant anonymity, then plaintiffs could proceed anonymously virtually anytime they challenge an insurer’s denial of coverage on the basis of a material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit’s mandate requires that parties only use pseudonyms in the unusual case. IRREPARABLE INJURY Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he will be irreparably injured absent a stay. The injury Plaintiff fears has already occurred to some extent by Plaintiff’s own doing. He appeared at a public hearing using his actual name. Further, in its recent summary judgment order, the Court concluded there was a dispute of fact as to whether Plaintiff intentionally concealed or misrepresented a material fact or circumstance relating to his insurance. At this point in this proceeding, there has been no finding of insurance fraud. HOIST ON HIS OWN PETARD Given that Plaintiff himself proceeded at a public hearing without taking steps to prevent the very disclosure he claims is so injurious, Plaintiff has not met his burden on the irreparable injury factor. As summary judgment was denied on the breach of contract claim, the case is proceeding to trial. The public interest lies in transparent and public court proceedings, especially trials. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay the order requiring Plaintiff to proceed under his actual name. ZALMA OPINION Pursuing litigation under a pseudonym because the defendant insurer claimed the Plaintiff attempted insurance fraud because his mental health and reputation would be harmed by the claims is insufficient. First, Plaintiff chose to sue State Farm. He could protect his mental health and reputation by not suing. Second, he was willing to attend a Zoom hearing with his true name showing, thereby effectively waiving the claim of anonymity. It could easily be concluded that he has sued under a pseudonym because he was embarrassed he was caught. (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

The Ranger: The Guy With A Gun In A Knife Fight A lot of people are calling the Ranger the strongest class in the sport, and whilst this is a chunk of an exaggeration, there may be some reality to these claims. The Ranger has absurd ranged harm with bows in combination with their Perks, super vicinity-denial options with bear traps and Quick-Shot, and even innate restoration with Rations. An archer elegance with get entry to to infinite arrows in a sport in which both the protective and evasive alternatives are sparse is certainly terrifying. Everyone having guns in Escape from Tarkov was one thing, but this is completely distinctive. This is exactly why the Ranger works nicely in solo play. Even the most veteran Dark and Darker players still get hit by AI enemies from time to time, but the Ranger's combat loop basically gets rid of that threat. Plus, towards actual gamers, a nicely-placed Ranger can easily fight and win against a three-character squad unmarried-handedly. And, even though their combatants do manage to close the space, Rangers can use their innate movement speed and endure traps to outrun and frustrate their pursuers before finishing them off with a bolt as quickly as they permit their guards down. The Fighter: A True Swiss Army Knife Class Where Rangers are a brilliant solo elegance because of their overall utility in areas, ranged fight and pace, Fighters are properly solo instructions because of their widespread software in all areas. Fighters have proper health, true defense, desirable offense, appropriate survivability, top Perks, proper Skills, and are simply all-round pretty excellent. However, be aware how none of their aspects are described as 'notable' or 'outstanding'. Yes, Fighters are accurate at maximum things, however they may be not clearly the 'high-quality' at some thing in exchange. Their average melee damage is not as right as a Barbarian's, they may be no longer nearly as speedy as a Rogue or Ranger, and that they don't have access to Spells like a Cleric or Wizard does. But, for a solo player, a properly-geared Fighter (each in terms of armor and weapons) will provide them the overall maximum chance of survival against the odds. Now, Fighters can not without problems 1v3 an enemy group, but they will typically stay lengthy sufficient to try to and have the best risk of dwelling to try to escape if they can't. The Cleric: Tons Of Healing In A Game Where Healing Is Sparse And sooner or later, there are Clerics. In wellknown Clerics are excellent solo training for a lot of the identical motives Fighters are. Their offense isn't horrible, their defense is respectable, and that they also can use a protect. But, in which the Cleric excels solely is of their basic survivability and PvE software. Clerics have a mess of spells that deal damage to undead which include Holy Light and their Holy Purification Skill. Not simplest that, but they may be also able to maintain themselves alive plenty longer on common than every other elegance might by the usage of each Lesser Heal and Holy Light. That said, while Clerics are accurate for solo gamers, they still shine the brightest when in a crew due to the fact they are able to heal their harm sellers mid-combat and even revive teammates with a spell. But for anyone simply trying to play on their very own and survive towards enemy squads, a Cleric is a pretty good elegance desire. All servers of Dark and Darker Gold Coins on MMOexp.com.

Blogger Still Has Not Updated Community Guidelines to Represent Trump Victory https://slantedright2.blogspot.com/2024/12/blogger-still-has-not-updated-community.html SUMMARY: Unsurprisingly, Blogger (owned by Google) is still censoring SlantRight 2.0 Medical Truth by calling it MIS-DIS-MAL-Information. My 12/2/24 Blogger post was removed under those flawed Community Guidelines which in essence is a denial of MAHA relating to Trump Cabinet Appointments. The READER can read the Blogger-censored post at The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right and/or John’s Newsletter Substack. #BloggerCensorship #MAHAReform

Appear for a Scheduled EUO or Lose Failure to Honor Conditions Precedent Voids Coverage in New York Post 4937 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/appear-scheduled-euo-lose-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-gvkec/, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. State Farm contended that it is entitled to summary judgment because of the failure to appear for examination under oath (EUO) by multiple defendants. State Farm contended that timely notices were properly mailed to the Claimants who failed to appear. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Alford A. Smith, M.D., et al, 2024 NY Slip Op 33802(U), Index No. 155607/2020, Motion Seq. No. 003, Supreme Court, New York County, Appellate Division (October 24, 2024) court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Supreme Court of New York County ORDERED that the plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm/Plaintiff’), motion for summary judgment was GRANTED against defendants, Alford A. Smith, M.D., P.C., and the multiple other defendants who are doctors, chiropractors and other health services, (hereinafter collectively (“The Defendants”). FACTS The Supreme Court found that the EUO scheduling letters were timely requested and claimants failed to appear at that EUO. The documentary evidence showed that plaintiff sent the EUO scheduling letters to the claimants within 15 business days of receiving the prescribed verification forms as required by New York statute. FRAUD, FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR EUO & FAILURE TO SIGN TRANSCRIPT ARE BREACHES OF MATERIAL CONDITION PRECEDENT The Appellate Division upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling that the failure to appear for an EUO that was requested in a timely fashion by the insurer is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage and voids the policy ab initio. In addition, although claimant Griselda Torres unlike the other defendants, appeared for her EUO, Torres failed to return a subscribed copy of her EUO transcript. State Farm properly and effectively argued that appearing for and testifying at EUO and returning the transcripts of the EUO are conditions precedent to coverage and failure to sign and return the transcript warranted a denial of the claims. State Farm demonstrated in its motion and supporting evidence that multiple claimants breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly noticed EUOs on two separate occasions. Furthermore, claimant Griselda Torres’ failure to subscribe and return the transcript of her EUOsviolated a condition precedent to coverage and warranted denial of the claims. Moreover, there was nothing on the Court’s record to suggest that the scheduled EUOs were not justified, nor held at a place and time that was not reasonably convenient to the defendants. CONCLUSION State Farm’s motion seeking summary judgment in its favor was GRANTED as to THE multiple defendants and it was further ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered; and it was further ORDERED that the case shall continue against the remaining defendants; and it was further ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order upon the defendants with notice of entry. ZALMA OPINION The defendants in this case were doctors, physicians, chiropractors and other health care providers who billed State Farm for services provided to people who were injured in automobile accidents and assigned their rights to the providers who tried to collect their billings without complying with the EUO condition. They all lost their claims because they refused to appear except one defendant who appeared but failed to sign the transcript of the EUO and return it to State Farm. They all lost their claims and State Farm will continue its actions against many more defendants not subject to the motion. (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

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

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

Debbie Hicks Explosive Day One: Trump and Kennedy Executive Orders Shatter the Status Quo and Redefine America’s Health, Freedom, and Government! BREAKING: Trump and Kennedy unleash a storm of executive orders on day one! Vaccine mandates obliterated, FDA and CDC abolished, bans on toxic ingredients, GMOs, and formal recognition of vaccine injury. A new era of health and freedom rocks America! BOOM: Vaccine Mandates Annihilated! Vaccine mandates are gone! Trump and Kennedy obliterate the mandates with one powerful order, putting an end to years of control by Big Pharma. Medical freedom is back! Americans reclaim the right to choose—no more forced compliance. Personal liberty is non-negotiable! POW! 1986 Vaccine Immunity Law: HISTORY! No more hiding for Big Pharma! Trump and Kennedy have repealed the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, tearing down the wall of immunity Big Pharma hid behind. Justice is back as citizens regain the right to hold these giants accountable. BANG! Ban on Fluoridation Takes the Nation by Storm! No more fluoride in tap water! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on water fluoridation ends the era of mass medication without consent. Let America drink pure and free! Expect a massive shift toward natural, clean water nationwide. BOOM! FDA, CDC, and FTC Reshuffled—No, Demolished! Trump and Kennedy don’t just reform—they obliterate the FDA, CDC, and FTC, dismantling bureaucracy. This is bureaucracy zero! New, accountable agencies will report to the people and protect health without corporate strings. CRACK! Toxic Ingredients Banned in Food—A Health Revolution! Say goodbye to harmful additives! Artificial dyes, preservatives, and toxins are out of American food. This isn’t a tweak; it’s a food revolution led by Trump and Kennedy to safeguard health. THUNDER! Vaccine Injury and Death Officially Recognized Trump and Kennedy blast through silence, finally acknowledging vaccine injuries and deaths. No more denials or gaslighting. Victims will be heard. Compensation fast-tracked, ensuring justice for those impacted. EXPLOSIVE! GMOs and Toxic Pesticides Banned—America Turns Organic! Trump and Kennedy’s ban on GMOs and pesticides sends a thunderous message: America goes organic. Health is prioritized over profit, and the agricultural sector is forever transformed! FINAL STRIKE: Recognition of Autism-Vaccine Link—A Truth Bomb Trump and Kennedy boldly address the autism-vaccine link, challenging the medical status quo. Independent studies will surge, and programs for affected families will expand, proving this administration champions truth and transparency. THE GRAND FINALE: Abolishing FDA, CDC, FTC—The End of an Era! This is it: the final blistering strike that shatters the status quo. Trump and Kennedy tear down bureaucratic giants, transferring power to the people. America, brace yourself—change is here!

Permanent Punishment for Conviction for One Ounce of Cocaine Improper Government Overreach and Abuse Reversed Post 4927 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/permanent-punishment-conviction-one-ounce-cocaine-zalma-esq-cfe-geq1c, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. After Recovery From Cocaine Abuse Dr. Regained License to Practice CMS Refused to Allow Dr. White to Bill Medicare for Services Dr. Stephen White challenged two unfavorable decisions made by the Secretary for the United States Department of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) that denied and revoked his Medicare enrollment. The decisions, rendered by the Appellate Division of the Departmental Appeals Board (“Board”), were based on Dr. White’s 2010 guilty plea and deferred prosecution for possession of less than 1 gram of cocaine, which occurred in Texas in 2007. In Stephen White, M.D. v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary for the United States Department of Health and Human Services, No. 2:19-CV-00037-SAB, United States District Court, E.D. Washington (October 28, 2024) the USDC applied entered a judgment reversing the decision of the Secretary [42 U.S.C. § 405(g).] SUMMARY JUDGMENT Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. BACKGROUND Dr. White is an orthopedic surgeon. In 2006 and 2007, he was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine in Texas. He was able to rehab and become clean of his problem with the drug. The Texas Medical Board revoked his license, but then monitored his recovery and compliance and allowed him to practice again. Dr. White had no violations for nine years following his arrest. He is currently practicing medicine in Washington state and is an enrolled Medicare supplier. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the denial, finding that CMS had a legitimate basis because Dr. White was convicted of a felony offense. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and Dr. White appealed that decision to the USDC. OVERVIEW OF MEDICARE PROGRAM The Medicare program provides health insurance benefits to people sixty-five years old or older and to eligible disabled persons. Suppliers, such as Dr. White, must be enrolled in the Medicare program and be granted billing privileges to be eligible to receive payment for care and services rendered to a Medicare-eligible beneficiary. DENIALS CMS may deny a supplier’s enrollment for any reason stated in federal statutes that allow that CMS may deny a provider’s or supplier’s enrollment in the Medicare program for the some of the following reasons: Felonies such as insurance fraud and similar crimes. REVOCATIONS The ALJ found CMS had a legitimate basis because White was convicted of a felony offense that CMS determined to be detrimental to the bests interest of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. Dr. White’s presented equitable arguments to the ALJ that 1 he self-reported and was not practicing; 2 using his self-report to deny would encourage other physicians to not self-report, 3 he has fully complied with the terms of the modified license, and eventually he was allowed to practice medicine without limitations. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, upholding CMS’ denial of Dr. White’s Medicare enrollment and rejected Dr. White’s argument that the timing of the revocation action by CMS was clearly retaliatory and intended to apply pressure on Dr. White for additional monetary penalties. ANALYSIS The USDC found CMS’ decisions to deny Dr. White enrollment in Medicare and revoke his privileges, and the subsequent Board’s affirmations were arbitrary and capricious and not supported substantial evidence. CMS did not have a legitimate reason to deny enrollment or revoke because the record does not support CMS’ assertions that Dr. White’s 2010 conviction for simple possession of a small amount of cocaine was detrimental to the best interest of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. The USDC understood the deference it owed to administrative agencies as they adjudicate numerous complex cases before them. Yet, a court may not simply act as a rubber stamp for agency decisions. Because CMS failed to provide a reasonable basis for denying Dr. White his enrollment in Medicare or revoking his Medicare privileges, the decision of the Secretary is reversed. ZALMA OPINION A doctor should never get involved or addicted to illegal substances like Cocaine. The Fact that a doctor self reports his involvement with the drug, was rehabilitated, clean for nine years, and practices medicine legally, does not pose a danger to Medicare as do those doctors who are arrested every year for fraud. The decision of Becerra, the ALJ and the Board was clearly retaliatory and abusive and the USDC had no choice but to reverse the Board and let the doctor continue to practice medicine and charge Medicare for his services. Overreach by the administrative agency was stopped by the court. (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

Government appointee calls to censor, track and criminalize “residential school denialism” 🇨🇦 #NoMoreLiberalsAndNDP 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #SayingTheQuietPartOutLoud 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #resigntrudeau 🇨🇦 🇨🇦 #JustSayNoMore 🇨🇦 https://tnc.news/2024/10/30/censor-track-criminalize-residential-school-denialism/ via @truenorthcentre