Body Shop May Not Force Insurer to Pay for Repairs not Performed
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gt7Dtur2 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4050 posts.
Allstate maintains a network of repair shops called Good Hands Repair Network (Allstate’s “network shops”). The network shops repair vehicles at the price set forth in Allstate’s approved estimates of repairs with no out-of-pocket cost to the insured other than the policy deductible. Insureds are not required to use a network shop and have the right to select the repair facility of their choice. A body shop sued because it charged more than the Good Hands Repair Network and Allstate refused to pay their rates and found fraud in there repair estimates. In Exclusive Auto Collision Center v. Allstate Insurance Company A/K/A Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, Encompass Insurance; et al, Civil Action No. BER-L-1784-20, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen (January 12, 2022) the New Jersey Court resolved the litigation.
Exclusive is not a network shop. Exclusive performed repairs on the 167 vehicles involved in the litigation. Exclusive had the vehicle owners execute an assignment to Exclusive of their right to receive payment of insurance benefits so that Exclusive could receive direct payment from Allstate. Under Allstate’s policy with its insureds, it is obligated to pay for the cost to repair or replace the vehicle to its condition at the time of loss subject to state laws and regulations.
RULE OF LAW AND DECISION
Exclusive, as assignee of the insured, can only get that which the insured agreed to by the contract with the insurer, which was what the insured was going to receive based on the adjusted costs.
Allstate’s obligation to pay was limited to the price that would be accepted by one of its network shops. Thus, Exclusive has no legal basis to claim that it should be entitled to more payment from Allstate.
The common law duty of good faith applies only when an agreement is reached.
Allstate began investigating Exclusive for insurance fraud in 2011. The parties have been in litigation against one another consistently since that time.
Allstate’s Motion for Summary Judgment was, therefore, granted.
ZALMA OPINION
When faced with an attempted fraud it is an insurer’s obligation to refuse to succumb to the claims of the fraud perpetrator and use the courts to defeat the fraud. Exclusive tried to recover more than they were entitled to receive for repairing a damaged vehicle by bringing multiple lawsuits against Allstate as assignee of the owner of the vehicles damaged. Allstate should be commended for its strength and refusal to be harassed into paying fraudulent claims.
© 2022 – Barry Zalma
Subscribe to “Zalma on Insurance” at https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf and “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://lnkd.in/gNm9EWKJ.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
The Collateral-Source Rule is a Narrow Exception to the Prohibition Against Double Recovery
Post 4850
Posted on September 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Surety Stands In The Principal’s Shoes And May Assert The Principal’s Defenses.
In Hudson Insurance Company v. Archer Western Federal, JV, No. 1:24-cv-544 (PTG/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division (September 18, 2026) Archer Western Federal, JV (“AWF”), the prime contractor for a new fire station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, subcontracted roofing work to Eastern General Contractor, Inc. (“EGC”) for $456,330.
Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) issued payment and performance bonds, each with a $456,330 penal sum.
AWF later sought recovery under both bonds.
LAW
Under Virginia law, the collateral-source rule is a narrow exception to the prohibition against double recovery. A surety stands in the principal’s shoes and may assert the principal’s defenses. Liability under the bonds required EGC’s ...
Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)
After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...
Violate Terms of Probation and Go to Jail
Post 4848
Posted on September 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Kindness in Sentencing is Often Abused and Probation Becomes Jail
In State Of North Carolina v. Tia Allen, No. COA24-1010, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (September 16, 2026) Tia M. Allen pleaded guilty on 18 April 2022 to several offenses under a plea agreement. The trial court consolidated the convictions, imposed an 11-to-23-month sentence,
On 6 February 2024, her probation officer alleged that Allen had paid nothing, failed to report, and incurred new criminal charges. At the 26 March 2024 hearing, counsel admitted Allen’s nonpayment but did not admit commission of the new offenses; the court did not inquire into the failure-to-report allegation.
Defendant did not deny this probation violation. Instead, when the trial court asked whether Defendant wanted to admit any of the alleged ...
