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?
May 12, 2022
True Crime of Insurance Fraud Video Number 72

Levon Sogomonian v. Imperial & Lloyd’s
Arson-for-Profit Fails Because of Rescission

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gkAHmaXr and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gbiYKK6e and at https://lnkd.in/giBUszHP and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.

Since I began writing these stories in 1990 I have changed the names of the parties to protect the guilty. This is an exception.

In 1981, Levon Sogomonian, a person who claimed to be a refugee from Soviet Armenia purchased a homeowners policy from Imperial Casualty. Simultaneously he purchased a Personal Articles Floater (PAF) from Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London insuring him up to a limit of liability in excess of $2 million for the loss of his house and its contents. Shortly after receiving the policies, an arson fire occurred destroying the house and its contents.

On investigation Mr. Sogomonian’s insurers proved that he had lied on the applications for insurance to Imperial Casualty and Lloyd’s. The Superior Court granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment. The Court affirmed the insurers rescission of the policies from their inception. Mr. Sogomonian appealed, and that decision is reported as Imperial Casualty v. Sogomonian 198 Cal.App. 3d 169, 243 Cal. Rptr. 639 (1988)

The Appellate Court, noting that the trial court failed to determine how much money Mr. Sogomonian owed to the insurers as a result of his fraud sent the case back down to the trial court for a determination of the amounts owed by Mr. Sogomonian.

Judge Miriam Vogel (now justice of the Court of Appeal) tried the case without a jury. Mr. Sogomonian contended that he should not be obligated to repay any funds to the insurer. He claimed the insurers’ acted in bad faith by losing the debris from the fire Sogomonian valued at $2,000,000.

Imperial and Lloyd’s had, to protect the evidence, collected all of the debris of the personal property destroyed in the fire and stored it at Bekins Van & Storage. Sogomonian claimed the loss of the valuable debris was a malicious act that should deprive the insurers of any reimbursement.

After hearing several days of sworn testimony, Judge Vogel made the following conclusions:

The fire at the Sogomonian residence was an arson that was probably committed by, or at the direction of Mr. Sogomonian.

After viewing the debris at Bekins Van & Storage she concluded that nothing was missing and, even if it was missing, the debris was valueless.

Mr. Sogomonian was required to reimburse Imperial and Lloyd’s for all of the money expended by them in making advance payments, making payments to innocent mortgagees, and for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the declaratory relief action a sum over $500,000.

Mr. Sogomonian, in a cross-complaint against his insurance agent managed to convince that agent’s insurer to pay the damages in exchange for a release of the agent.

Sogomonian, however, was unwilling to acknowledge his loss. He was angry and desired retribution. He concluded that his loss of the $2 million he expected to make from his fraudulent insurance claim was due to the activities of the investigators retained by Lloyd’s and Imperial, the late Leslie M. Schifrin of Schifrin, Gagnon & Dickey, in Van Nuys, California.

Sogomonian filed a lawsuit, in propria persona, in the Los Angeles Superior Court naming Mr. Schifrin and his firm as defendants. Sogomonian alleged that Mr. Schifrin had converted, lost or stolen $2 million in valuable fire debris that Judge Vogel had decided was not lost and had no value. Mr. Schifrin hired counsel to defend himself and his firm from this frivolous lawsuit and obtained, after spending more than $10,000 in attorney’s fees, a judgment in his favor.

Mr. Schifrin, and his counsel, concluded that Mr. Sogomonian should not profit from his wrongful activities. Mr. Schifrin, therefore, filed a complaint with the Superior Court accusing Sogomonian of maliciously prosecuting the lawsuit against Schifrin.

At the first settlement conference called, the settlement judge was livid. He advised Mr. Sogomonian, from the bench, that his actions in suing Mr. Schifrin were despicable and an absolute misuse of the judicial system for the sole purpose of revenge. He advised Mr. Sogomonian to settle for any amount Mr. Schifrin was willing to accept. Sogomonian responded that he, not Schifrin, was the victim and that Schifrin had stolen his merchandise. The judge threw up his hands in desperation and closed the hearing.

On June 1, 1994, after several continuances because of Mr. Sogomonian’s alleged ill health, the case was scheduled to come to trial in Van Nuys Superior Court. The day before the trial a check arrived on counsel’s desk for the amount of Mr. Schifrin’s demand. The trial did not go forward. Mr. Schifrin, after receiving three death threats and thirteen years of spurious and frivolous activities by Mr. Sogomonian, received a small amount of justice.

The lawyer who advised Sogomonian to file the original suit failed to appear for trial because he was in jail for exchanging shots with a person who owed him legal fees.

It took 15 years but some justice was done to a person involved in a fraud.
ZALMA OPINION

It is important when faced with an arson-for-profit scheme and insurance fraud it is essential that the insurers who have sufficient evidence to prove the fraud to insist on resolving the invariable bad faith suit from the arsonist to the highest courts in the land. Mr. Sogomonian was persistent but eventually failed totally and was required to pay restitution to the insurers. The state of California refused to even consider criminal prosecution.

(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/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

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 ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

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 ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

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 ...

00:08:02
July 03, 2026
Buying Insurance After the Accident is Fraud

It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception

Post number 5386

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming

In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.

That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.

The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
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