GEICO Again Acts Proactively Against Insurance Fraud and Takes a Bite Out of Crime
Barry Zalma
Mar 19, 2024
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gm4ttTqE, se the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUS-VWxh and at https://lnkd.in/gf2z-idy and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
No-Fault auto insurance was touted as a panacea to increasing insurance rates because of auto accident litigation. It failed because it turned into a profit center for dishonest lawyers, heath care providers and patient brokers.
“GEICO,” the victim of many health care frauds sued multiple health care providers, patient brokers, and other fraudsters, alleging RICO violations; common law fraud; aiding and abetting fraud; unjust enrichment; violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act; and seeking a declaratory judgment based on an alleged scheme to collect reimbursement on thousands of fraudulent no-fault insurance claims. GEICO moved against the Defendants seeking an order, pending disposition of GEICO’s claims in this action, (1) staying all pending no-fault insurance collection arbitrations and state court collections lawsuits that have been commenced against GEICO by or on behalf of the Gerling Defendants; and (2) enjoining the Gerling Defendants, and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf, from commencing any further no-fault insurance collection arbitrations or collections litigation against GEICO.
In Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Co. v. Michael Gerling, M.D., et al and Campiro, Inc., No. 23-CV-7693 (PKC) (MMH), United States District Court, E.D. New York (February 26, 2024) the USDC took a bite out of crime.
BACKGROUND
GEICO is an authorized automobile insurer in New York and New Jersey. GEICO alleges that the Gerling Defendants participated in an unlawful patient brokering and referral scheme wherein the Gerling Defendants provided fraudulent, medically unnecessary services to individuals who claimed that they were involved in automobile accidents and covered by no-fault insurance policies issued by GEICO (the “Insureds”). In turn, the Gerling Defendants submitted or caused to be submitted thousands of fraudulent no-fault insurance charges for reimbursement by GEICO.
According to GEICO, Gerling entered into a patient brokering and referral scheme with defendants. The Campiro Defendants and various personal injury attorneys “would cause patients to be referred to Gerling and NY Orthopedics for surgical procedures,” and the Campiro Defendants would pay Gerling “to perform invasive, expensive, and medically unnecessary surgeries.”
The Complaint provides multiple examples of fraudulent conduct by the Defendants. The examples included billing by the Gerling Defendants for procedures not warranted; billing where the Insureds were “recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary ‘treatment’” for a single accident “despite the fact that they were differently situated; billing for “surgical procedures to Insureds who did not have any serious symptoms secondary to any automobile accident that legitimately would warrant the procedures”; and false multiple representations.
GEICO alleged that the Gerling Defendants’ bills and treatment reports were false and misleading.
GEICO seeks to recover more than $2,200,000 already paid to Defendants under the alleged fraudulent scheme.
DISCUSSION
The Court first considers GEICO’s request with respect to pending and future arbitrations.
Irreparable Harm Absent Injunctive Relief
GEICO has demonstrated that it would face irreparable harm if the Gerling Defendants are permitted to continue pursuing collection arbitrations during the pendency of this lawsuit because those arbitration actions “might eventually be, at best, inconsistent with th[e] Court’s ruling, and at worst, essentially ineffective.
The Court found “that litigating the relatively small number of disputed arbitrations would irreparably harm [GEICO] absent a stay,” through the “risk of inconsistent judgments . . . in addition to money damages [potentially] not being available.” The Court found that GEICO has shown irreparable harm.
Serious Questions Going to the Merits
GEICO has raised serious questions going to the merits. The Court rejected the Gerling Defendants’ patently frivolous objection that GEICO has not provided substantive proof for the Court to consider other than its unverified Complaint. GEICO has provided evidentiary support for its allegations, not just with exhibits attached to the Complaint, but with exhibits attached in support of this motion. By specifically alleging an illicit patient brokering and referral scheme, describing in detail the unnecessary and substantially identical treatments provided to dozens of Insureds, and identifying specific types of billing misrepresentations-with documented examples-GEICO has raised “serious questions going to the merits.”
Balance of the Hardships
Finally, GEICO has demonstrated that the balance of the hardships tips decidedly in its favor. The Court concluded that GEICO has demonstrated that a preliminary injunction staying all pending collection arbitrations and enjoining future collection arbitrations is justified.
Pending and Future Collection Lawsuits
The Court agreed with GEICO that the “fragmentation” of this dispute into approximately 50 or more lawsuits “would nullify GEICO’s efforts to prove fraud at a systemic level, impair a federal declaratory judgment action over which the Court has taken jurisdiction precisely to eliminate such fragmentation, and deprive GEICO of an avenue toward complete relief in any court.
CONCLUSION
Under the circumstances, the Court concluded that it has the statutory authority to stay pending lawsuits and enjoin future lawsuits by the Gerling Defendants against GEICO during the pendency of this litigation, and that it should do so here.
The Court granted GEICO’s request in full and issued an Order (1) staying all pending nofault insurance collection arbitrations and state court collection lawsuits that have been commenced against GEICO by or on behalf of the Gerling Defendants; and (2) enjoining the Gerling Defendants, and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf, from commencing any further no-fault insurance collection arbitrations or new no-fault collection lawsuits against GEICO.
The security requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived.
ZALMA OPINION
The acts of health care providers who join with criminal entities to create thousands of fraudulent claims under the New York and New Jersey no-fault laws whose purpose to avoid litigation with regard to auto accidents and help reduce auto insurance premiums are being thwarted by fraud perpetrators. The fraudsters litigate with insurers who have no defense to the cause of the injuries. Since the state of New York are unwilling or simply refuse to prosecute the fraudsters GEICO has become proactive and are working to take the profit out of the crime. If the state won’t help and prosecute the fraudsters all insurers must emulate GEICO if they too are victims of 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 X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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://lnkd.in/gwEYk
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://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g; Go to X @bzalma; Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk; https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88.
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
