Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
November 10, 2021
Ohio Court Allowed Insurance Criminal to Change Felony to Misdemeanor Only to Face an Appeal Insurance Criminal Appeals After Pleading Guilty

Barry Zalma

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurance-criminal-appeals-after-pleading-guilty-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3950 posts. Posted on November 10, 2021 by Barry Zalma

Sandy Diane Pinney, appealed the March 2, 2021 judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas overruling her motion to dismiss due to pre-indictment delay, and the March 30, 2021, judgment sentencing her to twelve months community control on one count Insurance Fraud. In State Of Ohio v. Sandy Diane Pinney, 2021-Ohio-3483, No. 2021-A-0013, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula (September 30, 2021) the Ohio Court of Appeal dealt with the claim.
FACTS

Ms. Pinney, a fairly incompetent insurance fraud perpetrator, in October 2018, staged a fall on a broken egg while shopping at Wal Mart. Much to her surprise, she was actually injured and suffered a broken ankle. Wal Mart denied her insurance claim and she received no monetary compensation. An investigation was submitted to the prosecutor’s office in 2019.

Meanwhile, in August 2021, Pinney was under indictment for an unrelated offense, to which she pleaded guilty and served a twelve-month prison term. In October 2020, after her release in the unrelated matter, the state charged her with one count Insurance fraud in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1)&(C), a felony of the fifth degree, in relation to the Wal Mart fall.

Pinney filed a motion to dismiss due to a pre-indictment delay arguing prejudice in that she was deprived of the ability to argue for a concurrent sentence, or from seeking a negotiated plea that would have concluded the matter prior to her release from prison. Additionally, she argued that although the events occurred in 2018, the conviction appears on her record in 2021, after the completion of the 2019 prison sentence. The trial court overruled her motion, finding there was no evidence that the State was negligent or intentional in the delay, and that appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice in preparing her defense due to the delay.

In March 2021, Pinney, seeing a conviction on the way, withdrew her not guilty plea and entered a plea of no contest to an amended count one, Insurance Fraud, in violation of R.C. 2913.47(B)(1), a misdemeanor of the first degree. By so doing she avoided jail and the court sentenced her to a twelve-month period of community control.
ANALYSIS

In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss for preindictment delay, the court reviews only the legal issues, but affords great deference to the trial court’s findings of fact.

When unjustifiable preindictment delay causes actual prejudice to a defendant’s right to a fair trial despite the state’s initiation of prosecution within the statutorily defined limitations period, the Due Process Clause affords the defendant additional protection.

the Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that preindictment delay violates due process only when it is unjustifiable and causes actual prejudice. Once a defendant presents evidence of actual prejudice, the burden shifts to the state to produce evidence of a justifiable reason for delay. If the defendant fails to show actual prejudice, the state need not present evidence justifying the delay in the case.

To demonstrate prejudice, Pinney must point specifically to how she was prejudiced, and the showing must be concrete, not speculative. This court has made it clear that speculation does not show actual prejudice. The possibility of faded memories, inaccessible witnesses, and lost evidence is insufficient to demonstrate actual prejudice. Thus, mere possibilities do not prove actual prejudice.

Pinney argued that the delay in prosecution deprived her of the ability to argue for concurrent sentences or negotiate the plea in the unrelated case. The state argued that her argument must fail because she presented no evidence of this allegation to the trial court.

Pinney’s argument is fundamentally, and fatally, speculative; she argues that she was not permitted the opportunity to argue for concurrent sentences. Thus, Pinney failed to show actual prejudice, and her sole assignment of error was without merit. Her sentence stood.
ZALMA OPINION

Insurance criminals have no honor. After the prosecutors allowed Pinney to plea to a misdemeanor and avoid a return to jail, with unmitigated gall and a total lack of appreciation for the kindness provided to her by the prosecutor and the court, appealed the conviction because it took the prosecutor too long to arrest her while she was in jail on another charge. Her arguments on appeal were specious and she should have had her plea withdrawn and convicted – at trial – on the felony. She got nothing other than waste the time of a trial and court of Appeal.

© 2021 – Barry Zalma

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders.

He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/ https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.

Go to training available at https://claimschool.com; articles at https://zalma.substack.com, the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at https://www.rumble.com/zalma ; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ The last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ podcast now available at

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief

Post number 5357

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed

In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.

FACTS

Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders

All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.

Post number 5348

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.

In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims

Post number 5347

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer

In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In ...

00:08:02
40 minutes ago
Justice Should not Require Court to Give Patience to Criminal Petitioner

Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster

A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly

Post number 5387

Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster

A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387

In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.

Law:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...

post photo preview
July 03, 2026
Buying Insurance After the Accident is Fraud

It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception

Post number 5386

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming

In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.

That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.

The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals