Miscarriage Manipulation for Money
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gYQCAR39 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/geBmJtia and at https://lnkd.in/gKibuU7X and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Posted on May 11, 2022 by Barry Zalma
Posted on May 11, 2022 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v147vii-true-crime-of-insurance-fraud-video-number-71.html and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Rita was five months’ pregnant. Her entire family greeted her condition as an opportunity to make sufficient money for a happy Christmas in sunny Hawaii.
For four generations Rita’s family has lived luxuriously on insurance claims. Their last names changed more often than their underwear. Wherever they go, they carry a small plastic valve of soapy liquid and a small razor. Depending on the size of the town they are visiting, they stay a week, a month or a year. One member of the family will claim to have slipped and fallen in a restaurant or grocery store. With the razor they will induce bleeding at their hairline or on an arm or leg. They will be pleasant victims with no interest in profit. Grocers, and their insurers, rapidly and fairly settle their claims in fear that their injuries will increase.
Rita had been a professional claimant since she was eight. She fell in the most luxurious restaurants in Las Vegas, New York City, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Missouri, and Beverly Hills, California. Shortly after she began to walk, her family taught her how to slip and look like she was hurt without actually causing any physical damage. By the time she was five she could limp on either leg, hold one arm limp, wince with pain when touched and give all the symptoms of a severely injured person.
By the time she was ten she had a clear knowledge of anatomy and knew all of the symptoms of soft tissue injury. Now, at 22, pregnant with the child of a sailor she met in San Diego whose name she does not remember, Rita is ready to move into major, profit making scams. Her brother Aaron would pose as her husband as they worked the major hotels and restaurants of Sacramento, California. At the Holiday Inn, she fell in a puddle of water in the lobby restroom where two innocent women ran to her assistance.
“Oh, my God!” Rita moaned. “Did I hurt the baby.”
Rita rode to the hospital with her “husband” sitting in the ambulance beside her, wringing his hands. They left their name, a mail drop address and a telephone number which connected to the family cellular telephone, with the hotel. She and the baby were found healthy and allowed to leave, although the doctor, because of the family history of miscarriage, noted on the hospital record that here condition was “guarded” and that she should cautiously watch for any spotting or other indication of a potential miscarriage.
In the next four days Rita fell in five hotels, two department stores and three restaurants in greater Sacramento. She rode to the hospital in an ambulance twice and visited a local chiropractor known to her family four times.
The family lived, and traveled, in three sixty-foot motor homes equipped with cellular telephones, a computer and all the comforts of a luxurious home. The family knew better than to be greedy. They never presented more than 10 claims each in any one city.
Rita and Aaron were reasonable people. They told the adjusters they did not wish to hire a lawyer. Although they were afraid they might lose the baby, the doctors had assured them that the baby was unhurt by the fall.
The adjusters, sensing an ability to settle the claim quickly before the baby was born, with possible extra damage, worked quickly to gain the confidence of Rita and Aaron. They wanted a release that would protect their clients.
They had no knowledge of Rita’s family history. Liability was clear. Independent witnesses observed a slick, soapy substance on the floor and on Rita after she fell.
Rita and Aaron were professional claims presenters. They played upon the innocence and good faith of the insurance adjusters. They would tell the adjusters:
“We don’t want money. We just can’t afford to pay the doctors’ bills. Please pay those for us and we’ll be happy.”
The adjusters, knowing the law and knowing that if litigation was filed Rita would be entitled to money for her pain and suffering, insisted that Rita take more money than the medical bills. Most of the claims were settled for between $6,000 and $25,000, depending on the generosity or gullibility of the individual adjusters.
Rita’s potential miscarriage brought her family over $100,000 for their stay in Sacramento. Her brothers, sisters, cousins and nephews falling all over the city generated another $100,000 in claims payments.
Their welcome in Sacramento worn thin, the family motor homes traveled west to San Francisco.
The motor homes were parked in a long term secure parking lot and the entire family boarded airplanes for a three week holiday in Maui.
ZALMA OPINION
The reason why a group of professional slip and fall claimants can succeed is due to the failure of insurers to conduct a full and thorough investigation of a claim presented. Had the adjuster’s investigated Rita’s claims and had they checked the All Claims Data Base the crime would have failed.
No alt text provided for this image
(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/
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
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 and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
