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
July 18, 2025
Solomon Like Decision: No Duty to Defend – Potential Duty to Indemnify

Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119

Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.

KEY POINTS

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...

00:08:21
July 17, 2025
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Post 5119

Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment

In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)

Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...

00:07:38
July 15, 2025
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – July 15, 2025

ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29

THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL

This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages

It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.

The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.

You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf

Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud

...

00:08:27
July 16, 2025
There is no Tort of Negligent Claims handling in Alaska

Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

CASE OVERVIEW

In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.

Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:

1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.

Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...

post photo preview
May 15, 2025
Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - May 15, 2025

ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness

To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness

In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...

May 15, 2025
CGL Is Not a Medical Malpractice Policy

Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective

Post 5073

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.

In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:

Insurance Coverage Dispute:

Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...

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