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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
