Insured’s Suit for Fire Insurance Benefits Defeated by Qui Tam Claim by Insurer
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gNcnaDuW and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2c3ZcPj and at https://lnkd.in/gWWhYW2g and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4300 posts.
In Lisa A. McCullough v. Metlife Auto & Home, No. 4:20-CV-01807, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (September 30, 2022) McCullough sued seeking to force MetLife to pay Plaintiff for an insurance policy on the McCullough’s home, which was destroyed in a fire in 2019.
BACKGROUND
MetLife moved the case to the USDC and filed an answer to complaint, along with a counterclaim against Plaintiff for insurance fraud. MetLife served the counterclaim on Plaintiff’s attorney that same month, alleging insurance fraud under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff failed to respond to the counterclaim. In March 2021, MetLife moved for entry of default against Plaintiff, and default was subsequently entered by the Clerk of Court.
MetLife moved for a default judgment. In January 2022, this Court granted MetLife’s motion and requested briefing and evidence of any damages sought by MetLife. MetLife has submitted a brief and evidence listing its damages. MetLife has additionally moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). For the following reasons, MetLife’s Rule 12(c) motion will be granted and its motion for a default judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.
DISCUSSION
When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings a court assumes the truth of all factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and draws all inferences in favor of that party. It does not, however, assume the truth of any of the complaint’s legal conclusions
Pennsylvania law provides that an individual commits the offense of insurance fraud if she “[k]nowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-insured, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer or self-insured any statement forming a part of, or in support of, a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.”
Although these elements are set forth in a criminal statute, the statute further allows aggrieved insurers to file a civil action against violators of the statute “to recover compensatory damages, which may include reasonable investigation expenses, costs of suit and attorney fees.”
Additional facts indicated that Plaintiff set the fire, such as her relocation of important documents before the fire and the discovery of newly purchased gas cans with residual gasoline in them at her home, after the fire. Plaintiff “submitted a claim to Defendant for the alleged loss as a result of the fire,” thereby presenting “false, incomplete and/or misleading information concerning the claim and the cause of the fire.”
As Plaintiff did not appear before the Court, the Court, by rule of practice, must conclude that there are no disputed material facts. MetLife’s factual allegations lead to a reasonable inference that Plaintiff committed insurance fraud. Accordingly, MetLife’s motion under Rule 12(c) was granted.
MetLife’s Damages
Having found that MetLife satisfactorily alleged a civil claim for insurance fraud, the Court then considered its damages. MetLife sought $26,069.01 in “pre-suit investigation costs.” It has provided the Court with invoices for the firms hired to investigate the fire in McCullough’s home to support its request for pre-suit costs. The Court found this evidence sufficient to award the pre-suit costs without an evidentiary hearing.
MetLife also sought “$29,998.04 in litigation costs of suit and attorney fees” for a total of $56,067.05.
The invoices MetLife submitted did not indicate if multiple attorneys worked on this matter or only William J. McPartland, Esq. Additionally, the invoices did not explain how many hours were billed for or the hourly rates for Mr. McPartland and any other attorneys working on the matter. Nor are there affidavits to substantiate those hourly rates as the prevailing market rates in the community. Without this information, the Court could not determine a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts.
Accordingly, MetLife’s motion for a default judgment was granted in part and denied in part with respect to the damages it sought and the court offered to reconsider if provided sufficient detail concerning the attorneys fees sought.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud, especially an arson for profit, are both crimes and defenses to breach of contract claims by the insured arsonist. When Met Life filed its cross-claim the insured and her counsel saw the writing on the wall and refused to participate. As a result the insurer obtained a judgment against the insured which may or may not be collectible. The judge, with a finding of fraud, should have referred the case to the local U.S. Attorney for 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] and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, available here. The new book is available as a Kindle book, a paperback or as a hard cover.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
