Donald Trump is more popular now than ever! 😎😁 CNN forget to drank their own kool-aid for this segment 😆😆

💉 Holy Crap-Balls - even MSM are now discussing the toxic shots. “Discovery billions fragments of DNA in every dose” - Florida Surgeon General. The masses are going to be severely pi$$ed off when they finally find out what they’ve injected themselves with numerous times.

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

Insurer Properly Sanctioned for Failure to Obey Court Order It is Never Proper to Fail to Comply With Court Order Post 4937 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-properly-sanctioned-failure-obey-court-order-barry-vefvc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Insurer Privilege Underwriters took its name too far trying to obtain privileges from the Arkansas Court of Appeals to which it was not entitled and acted contumaciously by disobeying the Circuit Court’s discovery order. In Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Brandon Adams, No. CV-23-474, 2024 Ark.App. 571, Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I (November 20, 2024) the circuit court granted appellee Brandon Adams’s motion to enforce court order and motion for sanctions, imposed a “sanction fee in the amount of $5,000” against appellant Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange (“Privilege”), and awarded Adams $2,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37; denied Privilege’s motion for summary judgment; and denied Privilege’s motion for protective order, which sought to bar Adams from taking any depositions. FACTS In an insurance-coverage action in which Adams sued Privilege, his insurer, for failing to provide him a defense in a lawsuit filed against Adams and several other individuals and entities. Privilege answered Adams’s coverage complaint denying that it owed Adams a duty to defend the lawsuit and asserting a number of the subject policies’ exclusions as affirmative defenses to coverage. Adams served written discovery on Privilege. Privilege responded with objections and inadequate responses to Adams’s discovery requests. Adams moved to compel Privilege to respond and produce documents and the Court of Appeals ordered Privilege respond and to pay Adams’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $2,000. Privilege produced its supplemental interrogatory answers and supplemental privilege log on March 2, 2022 but did not comply with the circuit court’s discovery order. Contrary to the court’s order Privilege refused to amend its privilege log, provide full and complete answers to Adams’s interrogatories, or produce any witnesses for deposition, and instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment. Adams then filed his “Motion to Enforce Court Order and Motion for Sanctions and Incorporated Brief” on April 25, 2022. On December 20, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on Adams’s motion for sanctions and Privilege’s motions for summary judgment and for protective order. The circuit court announced that it would sanction Privilege for its failure to comply with the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order. From the bench, the circuit court made specific findings that Privilege had failed to comply with the provisions of that order requiring Privilege to amend its privilege log to provide sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate Privilege’s claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and to fully answer Adams’s interrogatories. TO ESTABLISH CONTEMPT Generally, in order to establish contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Contempt is a matter between the court and the litigant, and not between the two opposing litigants. Before one can be held in contempt for violating the court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms, clear as to what duties it imposes, and express in its commands. Contempt is divided into criminal contempt and civil contempt. The standard of review on appeal depends on whether the contempt sanction was civil or criminal in nature. The circuit court imposed a fine and fees that were to be paid to Adams. A contempt fine for willful disobedience that is payable to the complainant is remedial and therefore constitutes a fine for civil contempt. Privilege refused to comply with a valid discovery order from the circuit court because Privilege disputed Adams’s entitlement to the discovery underlying that order. Instead, Privilege moved for summary judgment, attempting to render moot that prior discovery order. The circuit court rightly held Privilege in contempt for its willful disobedience of the circuit court’s February 2022 discovery order and imposed a fine of $5,000. Once the February 2022 discovery order was entered, Privilege was required to comply with that order, not question the propriety of that order or when Privilege should comply with it. The circuit court was unequivocal in finding at the December 2022 hearing that it was sanctioning Privilege for its violation of the February 2022 discovery order. The circuit court then went on to explain that Privilege had disobeyed its February 2022 order by failing to provide contact information for the witnesses identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 and by failing to provide a privilege log with sufficient information to allow the circuit court and Adams to evaluate the claim of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not clearly err in holding Privilege in contempt. The circuit court had ample authority to use its contempt powers to enforce its February 2022 discovery order. ZALMA OPINION This order must be more than embarrassing to Privilege and to the insurance industry. Parties to litigation are not entitled to refuse to fulfill an order of the court. Regardless of the name of the insurer it had no special privileges and must fulfill the order to the letter and pay the sanctions including the extra sanctions placed by the Court of Appeals. (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

Everything wrong in every country is the cause of fools that vote, PERIOD!!! GOD WARNED YOU NOT TO CHOOSE A KING OVER HIM. Now you read that and lie to yourselves all you want, but you will NOT HAVE A PRESIDENT SAVE YOU!!! YOU DAMN FOOLS!!! 1 Samuel 8:1-22 King James Version 8 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. https://gab.com/krazykyle/posts/113531074063608439

Censorship put to music. "Mason Proffit: Two Hangmen" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC3yZdG_2Bc God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

Requiring an Insurer to Waive its Right to Subrogation is a Valid & Enforceable Contract Waiver of Subrogation Applies in Marine Insurance Policy Post 4938 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/requiring-insurer-waive-its-right-subrogation-valid-zalma-esq-cfe-gkn3c/, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog. Competing motions for summary judgment were presented to the USDC for the Eastern District of Louisiana in a limitation-of-liability action arising from the listing and capsizing of the liftboat RAM XVIII. The motions present the principal question whether Fieldwood (charterer of the liftboat) must defend and indemnify Aries (owner of the liftboat) and U.S. Specialty (Aries’s insurer) under a master time charter agreement from the personal-injury claims brought by employees of Fluid Crane & Construction, Inc. and United Fire and Safety, LLC (Fieldwood’s subcontractors) who were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized. Fieldwood moved for partial summary judgment enforcing waivers of subrogation in the master time charter agreement and the relevant U.S. Specialty insurance policy. In The Matter Of Aries Marine Corporation, et al., Civil Action Nos. 19-10850, 19-13138, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (November 20, 2024) the USDC resolved the disputes. BACKGROUND The USDC resolved a five-year-old limitation-of-liability action that arose from the listing and capsizing of the liftboat RAM XVIII in the Gulf of Mexico. Aries chartered the RAM XVIII to Fieldwood under a master time charter agreement (the “Time Charter”) in relation to work being performed on one of Fieldwood’s offshore platforms. Under those Master Services Contracts, Fluid Crane and United Fire sent employees to work on Fieldwood’s platform; those employees were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized. U.S. Specialty, for its part, underwrote an insurance policy (the “Policy”) that provided Aries with certain coverages in effect when the RAM XVIII capsized. Six employees of Fluid Crane and one employee of United Fire-all of whom were aboard the RAM XVIII when it capsized-brought personal injury claims against Aries. The motions before the Court present the principal question whether Fieldwood must defend and indemnify Aries and U.S. Specialty from those personal-injury claims. THE TIME CHARTER Section 10 features a waiver-of-subrogation provision mandating that “[u]nderwriters of all policies of insurance required [by Section 10] shall waive their rights of subrogation against the Charterer Group,” which includes Fieldwood. THE POLICY The Policy provides coverage to Aries for protection and indemnity, including coverage for personal-injury liability. The Policy includes a waiver-of-subrogation provision that applies to the protection-and-indemnity coverage. A separate section of the Policy-governing hull-insurance coverage contains a waiver-of-subrogation provision and a provision naming Fieldwood as an additional insured. THE MASTER SERVICES CONTRACTS. Fieldwood executed the Master Services Contracts with Fluid Crane and United Fire, respectively. Fluid Crane and United Fire agreed to indemnify the other entities involved from claims asserted by their own employees, as well as to be responsible for defense costs for such claims. ANALYSIS Fieldwood’s Motion Fieldwood moved the Court to grant partial summary judgment enforcing waivers of subrogation in the Time Charter and Policy and dismissing Aries’s crossclaim and U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention. The Court held that Fieldwood is entitled to partial summary judgment because a review of the Time Charter and the Policy confirms that both Aries and U.S. Specialty have waived their rights of subrogation against Fieldwood. U.S. Specialty Waived Its Rights of Subrogation The Policy unambiguously waives U.S. Specialty’s right of subrogation in favor of Fieldwood. The Policy features a waiver-of-subrogation provision. The Time Charter qualifies as a “written contract” that “require[s]” U.S. Specialty to waive its rights of subrogation against Fieldwood because the Time Charter features a waiver-of-subrogation provision mandating that “[u]nderwriters of all policies of insurance required [by Section 10 of the Time Charter] shall waive their rights of subrogation against the Charterer Group,” which is defined to include Fieldwood. Because a review of the Time Charter and the Policy confirms that U.S. Specialty unambiguously waived its rights of subrogation against Fieldwood, and because the claims asserted in U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention rest on a subrogation theory, the Court granted Fieldwood’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice U.S. Specialty’s complaint-in-intervention. The USDC concluded that the waivers of subrogation in Fieldwood’s favor are enforceable, and Aries and U.S. Specialty have not adequately presented any argument that would allow the Court to hold that their claims for defense and indemnity can survive despite the enforceability of those waivers of subrogation. Fieldwood’s motion for partial summary judgment was GRANTED. ZALMA OPINION Insurance policies like the marine policy interpreted in this case contain standard language authorizing the insured to waive the insurers’ right of subrogation if it does so before there is a loss. Since the litigants sought subrogation recovery which it had waived by the standard language of its policy this five year long litigation was resolved by the acceptance of the waiver. (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

Israel authorities need to tell Israel judges in Israel Supreme Court to overthrow that ruling that was made by ICC against Israel PM and co is important that Israel Supreme Court rule against that ICC judgment by imposture it in Israel Supreme Court

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