Another Proactive Insurer Works to Take the Profit Out of Insurance Fraud
Barry Zalma
Jan 12, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geTVCRzQ and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gytznEH4 and at https://lnkd.in/gDDZjyZE and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
Post 4709
In Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Bradley Pierre, Medical Reimbursement Consultants Inc., Marvin Moy, M.D., Rutland Medical P.C. D/B/A Medicalnow, William A. Weiner, D.O., and Nexray Medical Imaging, P.C. d/b/a Soul Radiology Medical Imaging, No. 23-CV-06572 (NGG) (LB), United States District Court, E.D. New York (January 8, 2024) Allstate joins GEICO and other insurers taking a proactive effort against no-fault insurance fraud perpetrators.
Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company sued Bradley Pierre, et al, alleging that Defendants defrauded Allstate in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO,” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)), by submitting hundreds of fraudulent bills for no-fault insurance payments. (See Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 459-542.) Plaintiffs also allege common law fraud and unjust enrichment and seek a declaratory judgment as to all past, present, or future bills.
Allstate moved for a preliminary injunction to stay all pending no-fault insurance collection arbitrations commenced against Allstate by Defendants and Plaintiffs requested waive their obligation to post security for the injunction.
BACKGROUND
Operation of the Alleged Scheme
The USDC concluded that the “allegations reviewing the fraudulent scheme in Allstate’s Complaint are overwhelming.” Defendant Marvin Moy, M.D., a licensed physician, purported to be the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Rutland but was merely a nominal owner. In reality, Moy ceded actual control over Rutland to Defendant Bradley Pierre, a layperson who does not hold a medical license and therefore is not authorized to own, control, or manage a medical professional corporation.
As a result of this extensive scheme, Allstate has paid in excess of $2,749,000.00 for no-fault claims submitted by the PC Defendants. Moreover, Defendants Pierre, Moy, and Weiner are currently facing criminal charges related to the scheme and the very allegations at issue in this case. See United States v. Pierre, No. 1:22-CR-00019 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) (hereinafter, the “Criminal Action”).
Evidence of the Alleged Scheme
In support of its fraud claims, Allstate has submitted an abundance of evidence. Accordingly, Allstate seeks reimbursement of the more than $2,749,000.00 it has paid Defendants and in addition to a declaration that it is under no obligation to pay any pending or future no-fault insurance claims.
DISCUSSION
When seeking an injunction a party must establish that without the injunction the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm. To establish irreparable harm, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show that there is a continuing harm which cannot be adequately redressed by final relief on the merits and for which money damages cannot provide adequate compensation. The harm must be shown to be actual and imminent, not remote or speculative.
Allstate argued that it will suffer irreparable harm because (1) there is significant risk of inconsistent results in the arbitration proceedings, (2) the time, effort, and money spent litigating these proceedings cannot be cured by money damages, and (3) arbitrations continue to be filed and adjudicated despite Defendant Moy, the sole official shareholder of Rutland, disappearing in October 2022.
The risk of inconsistent judgments is in addition to the expenditure of time, effort, and money that Allstate will exhaust dealing with a morass of litigation in the absence of relief that will not be cured by money damages.
Here, Allstate has sufficiently alleged that there is a serious question going to the merits of its declaratory judgment claim against Defendant Rutland and others. In its 102-page Complaint supported by numerous exhibits totaling thousands of pages, Allstate details an extensive and complex scheme centered around the fraudulent operation and control of Rutland, among other PCs, by non-physician Pierre for his own personal financial gain; unlawful patient referrals to the PC Defendants pursuant to improper agreements and kickback schemes; and fraudulent billing for unnecessary and excessive services yielding hundreds of false claims submitted to Allstate in violation of various New York state licensing laws.
CONCLUSION
Allstate’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief was GRANTED. Consequently:
1 all pending no-fault collection arbitrations by Rutland (or its agents) against Plaintiffs are stayed.
2 Rutland is enjoined from filing any further no-fault collection arbitrations or lawsuits against Allstate pending resolution of the instant federal action.
3 Allstate’s request that the court waive their obligation to post security was also GRANTED.
ZALMA OPINION
Allstate, like many other insurers writing no-fault auto insurance in New York state find that they are victims of fraudulent schemes like the one described by Allstate in its lengthy and well documented law suit and the state does nothing to stop it. The court faced with overwhelming evidence, including the fact that one of the defendants is under indictment by the federal Department of Justice. This lawsuit indicates a complete failure of the no-fault insurance system and the inability of the state of New York to police the crime. Allstate, like GEICO, should be honored and emulated for their action in an attempt to take the profit out of insurance fraud.
(c) 2024 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 my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Go to X @bzalma; 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-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
