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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
