Preparing for Disaster Risk Factors Are Not Damages

Watch the full video at and to

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company has filed for bankruptcy

judgment, stating that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs, Hamdallah, LLC, et al. (“The LLCs”), against the defendant, Nixon Calix. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims against State Farm for discrimination.

In Nixon R. Calix v. Ideal Market #6, Hamdallah, LLC, Kaki And Son, LLC, Hamdallah Hasan “Mario” Kaki, Muwafak “Mike” Kaki, Monadel “Cory” Elbarqa, Nofal “George” Haifa John Does 1-4, El Cortez Foods, LLC , and ABC & XYZ Insurance CompanyNo. 21-CA-555, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit (July 13, 2022) explained the right to rely on waivers clearly and concisely.

EVENTS

On May 28, 2015, Nixon Calix filed a defamation suit against Ideal Market #6, and others, alleging that after working at Ideal Market #6, he was assaulted and beaten by co-workers who also threatened his life.

Intentional assault

According to the statement, Mr. Calix was an employee of the meat department at Ideal Market #6, where Mario Kaki, Mohammad Kaki, and Muwafak Kaki were also employed in management. Mohammad Kaki and Cory Elbarqa drove Mr. Calix to 2309 L & A Road. There, Mr. Calix was accused of stealing meat from Ideal Market #6 and was “victimized with violent assault and/or battery” by Mario Kaki, Mohammad Kaki, and Cory Elbarqa. Mario Kaki picked up a gun, pointed it at Mr. Calix, and threatened to kill him if he did not admit that he was a thief. When Mr. Calix refused, Mario Kaki used the gun and his fists and legs to beat Mr. Calix’s head, face, and body for about four hours. Mr. Calix said he was “severely beaten, beaten, assaulted, tortured, and threatened” by Mario Kaki while Mohammad Kaki and Cory Elbarqa watched and prevented him from leaving. As a result, Mr. Calix said that he suffered severe emotional and physical injuries.

Predictions

Mr. Calix alleges that his injuries were caused by the defendants’ willful conduct, assault, robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, Calix argued that LLCs were responsible for this doctrine of the above solution for the consequences, negligence, and wrongdoing of its employees, and was liable individually, jointly, severally, and along with more through their carelessness, especially through careless hiring, careless training, careless supervision, and carelessness.

Purpose of Summary Judgment

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment alleging a failure to state its facts against the defendants. .

The high court signed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing all of Mr. Calix’s claims against State Farm for discrimination.

The trial court found that regardless of the legal theory against Mr. Calix, the intentional actions of the owners / managers of the defendant companies, especially the actions of Mario Kaki, are the main reason why Mr. Calix complains about the damages. The need for this is not directly linked to the policy.

LAWU

A dispute about whether, as a matter of law, the language of the insurance policy provides relief to a party, may be best resolved within the context of a summary judgment motion.

The extent of coverage is determined by the parties’ intentions, as is evident from the wording of the policy. The insurance company may limit the coverage in any way, as long as the limitation does not conflict with the provisions of the law or state regulations.

Mr. Calix argued that “anticipated or foreseeable injury” does not preclude a potential liability or a statutory liability. let the chief answer. Finally, he argued that State Farm failed to meet the requirements of his second motion for summary judgment because his injuries resulted from the negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention of multiple employees by multiple employers and no single incident of his actions. one person.

Except

State Farm policies have exclusions for people who are expected or will be injured, which provide:

  1. Anticipated or Intended Injury
  2. “Bodily injury” or “property damage” that is expected or likely to cause injury as a reasonable person would expect; or
  3. “Bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by the willful and malicious acts, or acts of the insured.

ENJOYMENT

This provision, by its very wording, does not exclude coverage for bodily injury caused by the insured’s willful conduct. In fact, it does not include coverage for bodily injury “anticipated or intended by the Insured.” The phrase “bodily injury … expected or intended,” emphasizes that the injury is not covered by the insured. wanted, not the insurance caused, yet intentionally harmful actions. The following words, “from the Insured,” also emphasize that it is the purpose of the insurance and the expectation that limits the exclusion.

The Court of Appeal said that reasonable people cannot dispute that, accepting the allegations as true, Mario Kaki used a gun and his fists and legs to beat Mr. Calix’s head, face, and body for about four hours. or intent to cause bodily harm.

Therefore, there is no error in the trial court finding that the facts do not include the publication of any case against the defendants because of Mr. Calix’s claims of assault, bet, robbery, false imprisonment, and/or intentionally offending Mario. Kaki, Mohammad Kaki, Muwafak Kaki, Cory Elbarqa.

The trial court correctly stated in its decision that, even if the defendants’ actions appear to be negligent, any liability brought against the defendants because of their suspicions is not excluded from the defense related to the bodily injury of a co-worker.

After finding that the policy does not cover intentional acts by employees/management, the Supreme Court of Appeals also held that the policy does not indemnify LLCs for any damages based on employee actions.

Any claim that the LLCs are liable for negligent writing, negligent training, negligent supervision, and negligent maintenance arises out of or is based on Mario Kaki’s actions. Therefore, there was no current insurance coverage based on the alleged damages for Mario Kaki’s willful conduct and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

Fortunately for State Farm its dismissal is clearly consistent with the allegations of the lawsuit and the facts produced and presented to the plaintiff. No insurance should be required to defend or indemnify an insured party who beats a claimant with fists, feet, and guns for four hours. One punch may be accidental but four hours is a serious blow which caused intentional harm to the appellant. Mario Kaki and his team will be required to defend themselves and pay any judgment that the plaintiff obtains without insurance benefits.

Just published

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to working as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance litigation, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He has practiced law in California for over 44 years as an insurance and claims attorney and over 54 years in the insurance business. He can be reached at zalma@zalma.com.

Subscribe to and receive the subscription-only Excellence in Claims Handling videos on locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Best Practices in Complaints at

Write to Mr. Zalma at zalma@zalma.com; ; daily news is published on Go to the podcast Zalma Pa Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Visit Barry Zalma’s videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Visit Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Visit the Insurance Claims Library –