Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

By Barry Zalma on March 10, 2026

Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments

Post number 5300

See the video at https://rumble.com/v76v6xs-acting-as-your-own-lawyer-is-foolish.html and at https://youtu.be/wqXxEHuJ1T0

Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges

In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.

Facts

Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). On October 30, 2023, their home suffered significant water damage when a toilet on the second floor leaked, causing the kitchen ceiling to collapse and sewage water to flood the basement. Plaintiffs filed a claim with State Farm for the resulting damages.

Plaintiffs contend the total damage exceeded $61,000 paid by State Farm because the incident involved a “Category 3” leak, which they allege should have triggered broader coverage under the policy. State Farm disputed the extent and causation of some claimed damages, finding not all appeared loss-related.

LEGAL ISSUES

Plaintiffs, acting pro se, moved for partial summary judgment on these claims and to vacate a modified trial scheduling order. State Farm responded with a motion for summary judgment on all claims. A key point of contention is the classification of the water intrusion’s severity and the scope of coverage provided for such incidents under the policy. The issues before the court were:

Whether State Farm breached the insurance contract or acted in bad faith by denying coverage for certain losses claimed by Plaintiffs.
Whether the damage constituted a “Category 3” leak, and if so, whether the policy required State Farm to cover all claimed losses.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on their claims or to vacate the modified scheduling order.
Whether State Farm is entitled to summary judgment on all claims against it.

Discussion and Analysis

The Court reviewed the parties’ motions and the record, noting that State Farm had paid a substantial sum but declined further coverage, disputing both the extent of the damages and their connection to the covered loss. The meaning of “Category 3” — highly contaminated water — was central to Plaintiffs’ argument that the policy required full coverage for all resulting damages. However, State Farm maintained that not all claimed damages were related to the covered incident or met the policy’s requirements for payment.

The Court ultimately denied Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and to vacate the scheduling order, indicating Plaintiffs had not shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their claims. The Court granted in part and denied in part State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, suggesting some issues remained for trial while others were resolved as a matter of law.

The Breach Of Contract Claim Survives Summary Judgment, But Personal Property Damages Are Limited To Actual Cash Value.

To show the contractual liability of an insurer, the insured must establish: (1) the existence of a contract, whether express or implied, (2) breach of one or more of the contract’s obligations, and (3) damages resulting from the breach. The only element in dispute here is whether State Farm breached the Policy.

State Farm Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’ Bad Faith Breach Of Contract Claim.

Although there is a disputed breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs otherwise cannot show that State Farm’s denial of additional coverage was clearly without reasonable justification. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that State Farm was engaging in intentional delays at the time it denied the entirety of the coverage that Plaintiffs seek or even that the supposed delays generate a breach of the Policy.

State Farm Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs’ Claim For Fraud As The Allegations Lack Specificity.

The Complaint avers that State Farm’s actions show “a fraudulent pattern of conduct” because its “systemic approach [is] rooted in a corporate culture that promotes unethical behavior.”

In sum, the only claim that survives summary judgment is Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract and any expectation damages associated with that claim. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was denied; Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate was denied; and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

ZALMA OPINION

When individual non-lawyers sue an insurance company like State Farm for everything they can think about, including fraud, they find real lawyers are more effective at destroying their case than they are at presenting it. After a great deal of analysis the court limited the plaintiffs’ suit to breach of contract to see if they are entitled to more under the contract than State Farm paid in what it believed was allowed by the policy.

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 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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.