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/
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...