Don’t Drive Off a Cliff, It May Not Be Covered
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6924706215813951488?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_updateV2%3A%28urn%3Ali%3AugcPost%3A6924706215813951488%2CFEED_DETAIL%2CEMPTY%2CDEFAULT%2Cfalse%29 and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v12cg12-true-crime-of-insurance-fraud-video-no.-61.html and at
and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Jimmy wanted a new pickup truck in the worst way. He decided to deliberately wreck his old car, make a claim against his insurance policy and use the proceeds to buy a new F150.
Jimmy disclosed his plan to his best friend, Winifred. She agreed to help — as a lookout for oncoming traffic —on the night they chose to destroy the car.
Jimmy, with his friend Winifred as a passenger, intentionally drove his pickup off the road and over a small cliff at 35 mph. He did not let her out of the truck to be his “look out” as planned. He thought it would be more realistic a claim — one that would not be questioned by his insurance company, if Winifred was in the car with him.
As planned, the car did not survive the crash. Unfortunately, neither did Winifred.
The heirs argued they were entitled to Under Insured Motorists (UIM) benefits under the Farmers and County Mutual policy because Jimmy was under insured. Furthermore, they claimed Winifred’s death was “accidental.”
Farmers and County Mutual’s response was, translated from the lawyerese:
“Give us a break.”
The heirs argued that Jimmy and Winifred intended to destroy the truck, not Winifred. The death was accidental.
In the Winifred’s Heirs v. Farmers & County Mutual arbitration, Farmers and County argued that interpretation of “accident” in liability policies is hyper-technical and legalistic and should not apply to the same term in UIM policies. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the insurer.
The heirs sued, lost at the trial court, that adopted the ruling of the Arbitrator. The heirs appealed and a Court of Appeals agreed, saying that, for UIM purposes, an “accident” is an “event” that, from the insured’s and the underinsured motorist’s perspective, is “unforeseen, unintended unexpected or the like.”
An injury is not accidental, the appellate court explained, if the injury-producing event was intended or expected. It is not necessary that the insured intend or expect the injury.
People who do wrong should not profit from it. Paying Winifred’s heirs for her death while admitting that she was intentionally a part of a criminal act is the same as the police paying the heirs of an armed robber who is shot to death by the police in the course of his armed robbery.
If our courts continue to honor criminals, and their heirs, for causing their own injuries the system will destroy itself. If insurers continue to pay to settle this type of fraudulent claim because it is less expensive than fighting to a conclusion all of us who buy insurance will suffer.
Every person who buys insurance should shout to their insurers – GIVE US A BREAK!
(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/
ZIFL Volume 30, Number 2
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5260
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzCr4jkF, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g432fs3q and at https://lnkd.in/gcNuT84h, https://zalma.com/blog, and at https://lnkd.in/gKVa6r9B.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th 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/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ZIFL-01-15-2026.pdf.
The Contents of the January 15, 2026 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Use of the Examination Under Oath to Defeat Fraud
The insurance Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) is a condition precedent to indemnity under a first party property insurance policy that allows an insurer ...
ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to...
Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss is Agreement to the Motion
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gP52fU5s, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gR8HMUpp and at https://lnkd.in/gh7dNA99, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Mercury Casualty Company v. Haiyan Xu, et al., No. 2:23-CV-2082 JCM (EJY), United States District Court, D. Nevada (January 6, 2026) Plaintiff Mercury Casualty Company (“plaintiff”) moved to dismiss. Defendant Haiyan Xu and Victoria Harbor Investments, LLC (collectively, “defendants”) did not respond.
This case revolves around an insurance coverage dispute when the parties could not be privately resolved, litigation was initiated in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Plaintiff subsequently filed for a declaratory judgment in this court.
On or about April 15, 2025, the state court action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation following mediation. Plaintiff states that the state court dismissal renders its ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
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/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
