Unique Insurance Fraud In Louisiana

Three Cases Dismissed Because of Suit Against an Insurer who Did Not Insure the Plaintiff

Barry Zalma

May 20, 2024

Transcript

Post 4804

Texas Law Firm McClenny, Moseley & Associates (MMA) has had serious problems with the US District Courts in Louisiana and what appears to be an effort to profit from what some Magistrate and District judges indicate may be criminal conduct to profit from insurance claims relating to hurricane damage to the public of the state of Louisiana. In April and May several cases have been the subject of motions for Summary Judgment from insurers who were sued by MMA who was sanctioned by the District Courts and new lawyers took over the cases only to find the plaintiffs had no right to sue since they were not insured by the insurer defendants. For a representative sample note the information from the following three cases:

1. In Ave Duruisseau v. Farmers Property & Casualty Insurance Co, No. 6:22-CV-03860, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division (April 26, 2024) Summary Judgment was granted because Farmers did not insure Plaintiff’s property.

2. In Hester Cole v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan, No. 2:22-CV-03514 United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (April 26, 2024) the court granted Summary Judgment because Foremost did not insure Plaintiff’s property on August 27, 2020.

3. In Terry Ramirez v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co, No. 2:22-CV-04797, United States District Court, (May 7, 2024), dealt with a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (“Atlantic Casualty”). The motion was unopposed. The details were a little different.

All cases filed by plaintiff’s counsel were suspended due to concerns about misconduct committed by that firm.

Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for breach of contract against Atlantic Casualty. In the absence of a valid contractual claim, plaintiff’s bad faith claims must also fail. The Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

The result of these three cases indicates that the MMA firm had a problem with the truth and filed suits on behalf of people who were not insured by the insurer defendant and was, as a result, a suit based on fraudulent allegations.

ZALMA OPINION

The last 28 issues of Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter has described the problems faced by MMA and insurers in the state of Louisiana who were required to defend false and fraudulent lawsuits.