Committing Insurance Fraud & Forgery While on Probation Requires Jail Time
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfeBFRAi and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.
Posted on April 22, 2022 by Barry Zalma
Dustin Jungvirt, appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to insurance fraud, claiming the district court failed to properly consider which sentencing option would best rehabilitate him. In State Of Iowa v. Dustin Jungvirt, No. 21-1130, Court of Appeals of Iowa (April 13, 2022) the Iowa Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The State charged Jungvirt with insurance fraud, claiming he filed false claims with his insurance carrier. Jungvirt was alleged to have committed the offense while on probation for child endangerment causing bodily injury. The State later added a charge for fraudulent practice. After Jungvirt’s arrest, he was released to the Iowa Department of Corrections for supervision.
In May 2020, Jungvirt was arrested for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon. Due to the arrest, the court revoked Jungvirt’s pretrial release. Jungvirt entered a plea agreement on September 11, admitting to the probation violation and pleading guilty to insurance fraud. He also entered a plea of guilty to four counts of forgery in a separate case. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend Jungvirt for a residential treatment facility if Jungvirt was deemed appropriate for placement in the facility. If Jungvirt was denied a placement in a residential facility, the State could recommend any legal sentence.
The court received a presentence investigate report (PSI) which recommended probation and placement in a Davenport residential correctional facility (RCF).
Jungvirt failed to appear for sentencing, resulting in the court issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. He was not apprehended until May 2021. Due to his absconding, the RCF would not approve him for placement.
Jungvirt, after being charged with new crime and returning to the court, expressing chutzpah, asked for probation, highlighting as mitigating factors his desire to see family, his limited criminal history, mental-health and substance-abuse issues, and progress he had made toward his education. The State urged the court to impose a prison sentence.
The court sentenced Jungvirt to a prison term of five years for insurance fraud, to run consecutively to the two-year sentence for Jungvirt’s forgery convictions.
DISCUSSION
Jungvirt contended the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to a prison term rather than probation. He ignored the reasoning of the sentencing court who, during the sentencing hearing, the court explained its reasoning as follows:
In every case, my duty under the law is to review what is available to me in terms of community resources and to determine what the appropriate rehabilitative plan for you would be, but to always remember first and foremost that the public must be protected.
In doing so, I look at the seriousness of the crimes, the effect the crimes have upon members of the community, your willingness to accept change and treatment, and what’s available within the community to assist you in this process.
The first thing that jumps out at me in looking at the file is that you had a plea agreement for probation. You were at the RCF and something happened and you were out to warrant, then, from October 22nd to May 30th. You knew at that time you pled guilty. You knew you had to take care of these matters and you made no effort to do so, which tells me that you were absconding from your responsibilities and obligations for the crimes you committed.
It’s not completely inconsistent with your criminal history. While these charges are more serious than maybe what you had in the past, you do have a history of failing to appear and a history of violating terms of probation.
I do consider as mitigating any substance abuse or mental health issues that you have.
What’s also concerning to me is that looking at the file, case number 312, you were on probation with a sentencing date of July 19th, 2018, and then comes the insurance fraud case that you’re here on today that happened after that, and it appears while you were on probation . . . .
And then, while you were awaiting trial on pretrial release in that matter, you pick up all the forgery charges that you’ve pled to in 505.
So each time when you committed a crime, before you resolved it, while you were still on some form of probation, you committed another crime. To me, that warrants incarceration.
The Court of Appeals concluded, faced with the clear and logical statement made by the sentencing court, properly considered the defendant’s chances of reform, criminal history, mitigating factors such as mental health and substance abuse, the resources available to the defendant, the effect Jungvirt’s crime had on the community, and what punishment would best protect the public. In particular, the court emphasized Jungvirt’s consistent pattern of engaging in illegal activity while on probation or pretrial release. The court determined incarceration was necessary.
A district court is not bound by the recommendations in a PSI. Due to its consideration of the relevant factors, the total lack of respect for the court system, the criminal actions when on probation, it became obvious that the district court did not abuse its discretion concerning Jungvirt’s sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.
ZALMA OPINION
It is time that trial and appellate courts stop coddling insurance fraud criminals with probation and half-way-houses and deter the crime with real prison time. That Dustin Jungvirt had the unmitigated chutzpah, on such a ling series of criminal conduct, to claim the court improperly sentenced him to prison was an amazing waste of the time of two courts and should have been condemned with more than affirming the sentence and the addition of serious sanctions.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
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 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. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to 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 Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; 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/
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...