Insurance Consultation

bz-9

Insurance Consultation 

  • Bad Faith Avoidance
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Presentation of Insurance Claims
  • Defense of Insurance Claims
  • Insurance Claims Handling
  • Insurance Bad Faith
  • Compliance with Fair Claims Regulations
  • Insurance Policy Wording
  • Insurance Fraud Investigation and Litigation
  • Insurance Education & Training

Consultants To Insurance Industry and Policyholders

ZIC brings Barry Zalma’s more than 45 years of practical claims experience and the experience of insurance experts across the U.S., to your insurance problem or lawsuit. ZIC will help you resolve every insurance problem faced by you or your clients. The experience and skill of Mr. Zalmaan make the difference before a jury or other trier of fact. ZIC will consult with you on any one or more of the following issues that are important to those in the business of insurance and their counsel:

  • Bad Faith Avoidance –Mr. Zalma Will help an insurer establish that the claim was denied as a result of a good faith genuine dispute.
  • Coverage Problems — Mr. Zalma will give you and your clients advice and counsel concerning the interpretation of insurance coverages, recommend changes in policy wording, and offer solutions to disputes between insureds and their insurers.
  • Claims Handling As a former claims person, and as an insurance claims educator and author Mr. Zalma will consult with you or your clients concerning every aspect of the insurance claims process.
  • Good Faith ZIC will consult with you or your client to assure that your client can prove that they treated the insured as they are required to do by the contract of insurance or the Fair Claims Practices statutes in your jurisdiction. They will also consult with your client so that any dispute between the insured and the insurer is established to be genuine and reasonable. ZIC will help you or your client establish that the insurer’s claims staff met the requirements of the contract, the law, and the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations.
  • Insurance Fraud & SIU Investigations As an internationally recognized expert and Certified Fraud Examiner Mr. Zalma, and Zalma Insurance Consultants, are ready to consult with insurers who believe they are the victims of an insurance fraud, or individuals or corporations who believe they have been wrongfully accused of insurance fraud. ZIC consultation, opinions and assistance are invaluable in cases where fraud is suspected or accused.
  • Training and Education — Through the Forensic Expert Witness Association ZIC provides MCLE credit and training for California lawyers. ZIC is also available to teach insurance claims and underwriting personnel about any insurance subject from reading and understanding an insurance policy to fraud investigation techniques.
  • Mediation or ArbitrationZalma Insurance Consultants also acts as mediator or arbitrator for any dispute involving insurance or insurance coverages. Using Zalma Insurance Consultants to mediate or arbitrate an insurance dispute can save an insurer thousands of dollars in unnecessary investigative,  legal  and arbitration or mediation expenses.

Mr. Zalma also acts as an expert qualified to testify concerning the custom and practice of insurers concerning:

  • Claim handling practices.
  • Investigation minimum and standards.
  • Insurance policy interpretation.
  • Insurance fraud investigation.
  • Insurance policy interpretation.

Indispensable Advice

As a claims person and claims attorney for more than 45 years, Barry Zalma has represented insurers, advised insurers on claims handling, interpreted coverages, and testified as an insurance coverage, insurance fraud, insurance bad faith and insurance claims handling expert. Zalma  has written insurance policies for insurers and is the author of books used daily by working claims professionals.

Take advantage of Mr. Zalma’s more than 45 years of claims experience. Allow ZIC’s experience to find a resolution to your insurance dispute that is fair, intelligent, and beneficial to your client. Consultation from Mr. Zalma can save you or your client thousands of dollars in the prosecution or defense of an insurance dispute.

Instant Response

Counsel and clients, in a shortsighted effort to save expenses, often wait until the last moment to retain an expert or consultant. Expert consultants like Zalma Insurance Consultants can save an insurer, insured, or the defense or plaintiff’s attorney considerable time and expense if retained early. If you elect to retain your consultant or expert at the designation deadline ZIC and Mr. Zalma can be a solution. Because Mr. Zalma declines all litigation assignments and keeps his caseload low, he can completely control his calendar and can respond to your request for advice and counsel promptly. Usually within no more than five working days, regardless of the total volume of the file materials, he will be ready to consult with you or testify on your client’s behalf. If he cannot personally deal with your claim, Mr. Zalma will refer you to one of his experienced Zalma Insurance Consultants colleagues.

Mr. Zalma recommends that counsel retain the services of Zalma Insurance Consultants early and avoid wasting time and money pursuing a suit or defense that can be circumvented with his assistance. Zalma Insurance Consultants will promptly review file materials and advise you about the viability of your defense. He can also help you narrow the scope of discovery. No other insurance consultant or expert witness can offer such prompt, credible, and authoritative advice on insurance, insurance coverage, insurance fraud or insurance claims handling questions.

9 Responses to Insurance Consultation

  1. Henry says:

    Dear Mr.Zalma, I have written to you in the past regarding an insurance matter for asbestos contamination and the content valuation methods used by the insurer. I would like to thank you for your response and for your time. I must now request just a bit more and possibly even retain you service in the very near future. I have via mandated discovery come into possession of documents that clearly indicate that the insurer and its employees, intentional exposed person and or persons to a known Hazardous Toxic (Airborne Asbestos) with prior knowledge (Asbestos Lease Addendum) and working knowledge (asbestos test results ordered by insurer) and their intentional attempts while in concert to conceal this information (failure to submit disclosure documents). Could you provide your opinion on where these parties and their employees could be charged under California Penal Code 387. I would like to invite you and or your .Representitvie to the pending civil case on May 19th of this year in Ventura, California. In closing, as I am aware that no third party can file a bad faith suit to an insurer during civil suit of the insured. I am planning to do so upon the completion of such. All of the proof is contained in the documents give to me by the defendants. and I would very much like to have your assistance in bringing those that not only failed to exercise their duty to their tenants but also to the 12 employees yet to be advised of their exposure to the Hazard.

    Thank You Sir,
    Henry

  2. Brian Coyle says:

    Mr. Zelma,

    Please help me to understand an insurance company’s interest in this case:

    In March 2009 my family lived on the bottom floor of a four unit building. Directly above lived one of the property’s three landlords, brothers. He had no apparent means of support. He moved out April 1. On the last day of March, he packed his belongings in his car, and pulled it out of the building’s car port. That night a fire started in his apartment and burned the building down. Numerous fire fighters fought the blaze. We didn’t have renters insurance, but even if we did, it wouldn’t have covered memories lost. Luckily my young son was having a sleep over at a friends house, so he wasn’t traumatized.

    The upstairs landlord was often intoxicated. His description of the fire changed, from initial claims that it was a television explosion to a stove fire. Oddly, the stove was the only thing left standing on the second floor, which had otherwise collapsed on the first.

    I assumed he started it by accident, because what could be gained? What I learned later changed my mind. The insurance company paid in excess of $600,000 for the building. It wasn’t rebuilt. A year later the brothers split the proceeds.

    Could the insurance company have missed the fact that the upstairs landlord had packed his belongings in his car, that the fire occurred the night he moved, and that the building was not rebuilt? That the person who set the fire gained over $200,000? I have a serious problem with someone burning a property my family is in. Also, as the house is in a fire-prone area, the fact that fire arson worked is a terrible precedent.

    I’d be interested if you can recommend appropriate action.
    Thank you,
    Concerned

  3. Brian Coyle says:

    Thank you. Because you advise reporting the incident to a government agency, not the insurance company, I’d like to clarify one thing:

    If the investigators after the fire did not find out the landlord had removed his items the evening prior, and was moving out that day, has the insurance firm lost its opportunity for discovery? California arson has a three year limitation statute, beginning when evidence is first discovered. That’s why I am interested in an insurance company’s required due diligence. If they should have found out circumstantial evidence, maybe the fire starter made material misrepresentations If the insurance company discovers circumstantial evidence now, given the time lapse, they may hesitate because of subrogation risk and costs.

  4. Dave Roy says:

    I have hail and wind damage to my roof due to a recent storm.
    the insurance co. is only willing to pay for a small portion of the damage.
    damage the ins. co. calls “physical damage”

    Roofer says I have cracked shingles and “hail hits” the insurance co. says:
    they are not hail hits but “marring” and they don’t cover marring as that is cosmetic.
    the Roofer says legally the insurance co. can not distinguish between the 2…….
    it is all DAMAGE. PLS ADVISE

  5. Jeff Dickes says:

    Nice blog here! Additionally your web site lots up fast!What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associatehyperlink for your host? I want my website loaded up as quickly as yourslol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *