False Lightning Strike Claim Results in Fraud Conviction
Barry Zalma
Oct 18, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gs8WuFEM and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gxPY2j23 and at https://lnkd.in/gbcv8jsh and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4600 posts.
Sara Weisbeck appealed her convictions for insurance fraud: false material information and identity theft over $1500 and under $10,000, both class “D” felonies. In State Of Iowa v. Sara Jo Weisbeck, No. 22-1068, Court of Appeals of Iowa (October 11, 2023) considered her pleas for mercy.
FACTS
In spring 2019, Weisbeck was renting a house from Lisa Smith in LeClaire. The house did not come with appliances, so Weisbeck provided her own refrigerator, stove, microwave, washer, and dryer. The night of June 30, there was a severe storm in the area. The following morning, Weisbeck sent Smith this text message:
I don’t want to sound sketchy, but the house totally got struck [b]y lightening [sic] last night, and there are trees like splitting down the middle …. I don’t know if you want to call your insurance and report it as part of the damage or not, but it would be good timing to do so if you did!
That evening, Smith and her son went over to the house. Weisbeck was in the back yard and showed Smith the splitting tree at the back of the large lot. But Smith did not see or smell any scorching. Weisbeck then told Smith that lightning had struck the roof of the house and knocked a window out of its frame. Smith saw a window frame lying on the ground with one pane missing, but no shattered glass was around it. Weisbeck also said, because of the lightning strike, all of her appliances got “fried.” Weisbeck would not, however, let Smith into the house to inspect the damage to the window. She only allowed Smith in several days later. Smith ultimately did not file any claim with State Farm, her property insurer.
Weisbeck reported to her insurer, Nationwide Insurance, that lightning struck a tree on her lawn, and the electricity traveled into her house, damaging her appliances. She gave a list of the damaged items. She was also asked for and provided photographs of the items. The claims adjuster reported advising Weisbeck to keep her damaged property for inspection.
Weisbeck’s claim was referred to Nationwide’s Special Investigations Unit for raising several “red flags.” Joe Martinez, a special investigator with Nationwide, took over the case and asked to inspect the interior of the home, Weisbeck would not let him in. He explained that they needed to inspect the home and conduct an interview to collect additional information on the claim. Martinez photographed the tree and the house exterior, noting that the electrical meter was still functioning and there appeared to be no electrical or fire damage to the house.
At that point, Weisbeck came out again and told Martinez to leave. Weisbeck was deemed to have refused to cooperate with the investigation, and Nationwide ultimately denied her loss claim.
LeClaire police forwarded the complaint to the Iowa Insurance Division Fraud Bureau. The State ultimately charged Weisbeck with two criminal counts: insurance fraud: false material information a class “D” felony; and identity theft over $1500 and under $10,000 also a class “D” felony. A jury convicted Weisbeck as charged. The court sentenced her to indeterminate terms of five years for each conviction but suspended the terms and imposed two years of probation. She appealed her convictions and sentence.
ANALYSIS
Weisbeck argued there was insufficient evidence to prove she intended to defraud Nationwide or that she provided materially false information. The Court of Appeals agreed with the State that there was ample evidence to support both jury findings. The state established that several of the appliances, including the PlayStation and the Samsung Blu-ray player, appeared to have functioning lights, suggesting those electronics did not get “fried” as Weisbeck claimed. Another photograph depicted a monitor and printer with functioning blue lights next to the HP computer claimed as damaged.
The court of appeals concluded that the jury reasonably believed that Weisbeck invented a fake email address to stand in as her landlord and falsely represent that her claim was valid. The evidence was enough to convince the jury that Weisbeck did so with the specific intent to defraud Nationwide.
The jury was entitled to reject this defense and to disbelieve Weisbeck’s story about the shifting appliances, and did so. There was substantial evidence to support its conclusion and a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Weisbeck engaged in a pattern of deceptive behavior intended to get her claim approved, depriving Nationwide of those funds through deceit.
SENTENCING
Finally, Weisbeck contested her sentence to two five-year prison terms, suspended, instead of the deferred judgment she requested. At sentencing, Weisbeck argued that a felony conviction on her record would preclude her from jobs in her field as an elementary school resource teacher. The court of appeals noted that protection of the community from further offenses is an important and relevant sentencing factor and agreed with the trial court that found the criminal thinking involved warranted future employers being warned as to the defendant’s past conduct. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court considering this as a relevant factor in sentencing.
Zalma Opinion
Ms. Weisbeck was convicted for committing multiple crimes in an attempt to profit from an insurance claim. Instead of accepting the kind trial judge’s sentence of only probation she appealed her convictions with little chance of success. She was lucky the court did not sanction her activities or find that the appeal breached the grounds for probation and sentenced her, as it should have, to spend the five years in jail.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; 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 – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-l
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g.
Go to Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/zalma; Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gziTwddb.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
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/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
