Here is the Corder version of my new video where I respond to Nala Ray denying Jesus' divinity and the trinity. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe, like, comment, and share! #nalaray #whatever #jesus #trinity #heresy https://corder.tv/video/.6nu6

Here is the Rumble version of my new video where I respond to Nala Ray denying Jesus' divinity and the trinity. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe, like, comment, and share! #nalaray #whatever #jesus #trinity #heresy https://rumble.com/v5s1628-nala-ray-denies-jesus-divinity-and-the-trinity.html

Here is the BitChute version of my new video where I respond to Nala Ray denying Jesus' divinity and the trinity. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe, like, comment, and share! #nalaray #whatever #jesus #trinity #heresy https://www.bitchute.com/video/1xpG5siqVoax

Here is the YouTube version of my new video where I respond to Nala Ray denying Jesus' divinity and the trinity. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe, like, comment, and share! #nalaray #whatever #jesus #trinity #heresy https://youtu.be/PTL7kmzmPNQ

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

Are you getting your greens? If not, grab some of this super green juice! I drink a couple of these each day and they are delicious! Subscribe and grab yours today! https://timbrown.thegoodinside.com/shop/product/super-green-juice #everyone

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

Occam’s Razor Exclusion for Work Performed by Insured Defeats Claim for Construction Defects Post 4935 Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gT_NsMHv, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gqkPHYbp and at https://lnkd.in/gEEXkUe3, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. The question presented to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals was whether a contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers general damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project. APPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR The analysis technique that proposes that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Applying Massachusetts law, the district court concluded that Admiral had no duty to defend Tocci in Admiral Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Great American Assurance Company v. Tocci Building Corporation, Tocci Residential LLC, John L. Tocci, Sr., No. 22-1462, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (November 8, 2024) and Tocci appealed. From 2013 to 2016, Tocci was the construction manager for an apartment project owned by Toll JM EB Residential Urban Renewal LLC (“Toll”). There were several work quality issues and delays on the project, and Toll eventually terminated Tocci in March 2016 for alleged mismanagement of the project. Toll sued with allegations regarding instances of defective work leading to property damage. The allegations included defective work by Tocci’s subcontractors resulting in various instances of property damage to non-defective work on the project, including (1) damage to sheetrock resulting from faulty roof work; (2) mold formation resulting from inadequate sheathing and water getting into the building; and (3) damage to a concrete slab, wood framing, and underground pipes resulting from soil settlement due to improper backfill and soil compaction. DUTY TO DEFEND Tocci sought defense and indemnity coverage under the Admiral insurance policies. Admiral denied coverage. The district court granted Admiral’s motion on duty to defend because the damage alleged in Toll’s complaint did not qualify as “property damage” as defined in the policy because the allegations consisted entirely of damage at Tocci’s own project. ANALYSIS The First Circuit considered three steps to the coverage analysis: (1) Do the damages alleged in the action fall within the scope of coverage?; (2) if so, do the exclusions to coverage apply?; and (3) if so, do any exceptions to the exclusions apply? The First Circuit noted that there is a sharp split of authority on whether damage to non-defective work resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work constitutes “property damage” or is caused by an “occurrence.” The First Circuit decided to avoid the issues of what constitutes “property damage” by focusing on the exclusions which were sufficient to resolve the complete dispute. THE HOLDING There are two “Damage to Property” exclusions that provide that there is no coverage for “property damage” to: that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it. The First Circuit, applying Occam’s Razor, focused its analysis on the exclusion it concluded covers the allegations in the Toll complaint. Since the complaint alleges damage resulting from Tocci’s “incorrectly performed” work on the entire project “[t]hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘[Tocci’s] work’ was incorrectly performed on it” refers to the entirety of the project where Tocci was the general contractor charged with supervising and managing the project as a whole. Therefore, the First Circuit concluded that Admiral met its burden of establishing that the Toll action only alleges damage falling within the exclusion and that there was no exception to that exclusion that applied. ZALMA OPINION This is a case of a court applying Occam’s Razor, by picking an easy and obvious solution – the application of an exclusion – and avoiding the problem of different court rulings on coverage about “property damage” and “occurence.” Since the exclusion clearly applied there was no duty to defend. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy

You Can't Record our Truck Turn That Off #police #firstvlog CHECK OUT Kansas City Accountability! like & subscribe to our brother in arms! Kansas City Accountability https://youtu.be/AjhP6Z143lo