GEICO Continues it Proactive Actions Against Insurance Fraud
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gaeXDhEW, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g4RiQN6a and at https://lnkd.in/ghAPnkg6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4821
Insurers have found that states, like New York, will do little or nothing to deter insurance fraud. Determined to protect its assets and its insureds, many GEICO brand insurance companies have acted proactively against people and health care providers who are attempting to defraud them and their insureds. In Government Employees Insurance Company, et. al. v. Colin Clarke, M.D., Colin Clarke Md P.C., Svetlana Kovaleva a/k/a Melana Kay, Medical Evaluation Services & Billing, Inc., Medical Consultation Services & Billing, Inc., and John Doe Defendants, No. 1:23-CV-04605 (FB) (SJB), United States District Court, E.D. New York (June 20, 2024) the fraud perpetrators attempted to defeat GEICO’s RICO action by counterclaiming that GEICO committed fraud.
GEICO moved to dismiss the Clarke Defendants’ counterclaims and to strike twelve of their affirmative defenses.
BACKGROUND
GEICO sued Defendants for submitting allegedly fraudulent no-fault insurance claims to GEICO for services performed at Dr. Clarke’s healthcare practice, among other things. It brought claims for civil RICO violations, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. GEICO also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Clarke Defendants have no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to GEICO.
In response, the Clarke Defendants counterclaimed against GEICO on allegations that GEICO has – through its insurance-claim verification process, committed fraud by reporting Dr. Clarke to the New York State Department of Health, and by bringing two RICO cases against Dr. Clarke, including this lawsuit.
The Clarke Defendants counterclaimed for: (i) common law fraud; (ii) aiding and abetting fraud; (iii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349; (v) abuse of process; (vi) and attorneys’ fees. GEICO moved to dismiss all counterclaims and to strike twelve of the Clarke Defendants’ affirmative defenses.
DISCUSSION
Under New York law, the elements of a common law fraud claim are: (i) material misrepresentation of a fact, (ii) knowledge of its falsity, (iii) intent to induce reliance, (iv) justifiable reliance by the claimant, and (v) damages.
The fraudulent conduct the Clarke Defendants allege is simply the non-performance of GEICO’s contractual duties to process no-fault and regarding the alleged thefts committed by the Kay Defendants, and GEICO’s alleged non-disclosure of those thefts. Since the Clarke Defendants’ conclusory allegations are insufficient to plead a claim for fraud and because vague and conclusory allegations that a defendant committed theft are insufficient to plead a cognizable fraud claim.
THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
GEICO argued that the Clarke Defendants’ breach of contract claim must be dismissed because they have not alleged sufficient details about the underlying contracts or how their implicit duties were violated.
The Clarke Defendants conclusory allegations that they were assigned the contractual rights that GEICO owed to its insureds without any specific facts about those policies, when they were assigned, who they belonged to, what terms they contained, or on what basis GEICO denied claims submitted pursuant to their terms. Absent even minimal detail about the underlying contracts, the Clarke Defendants cannot sustain a claim that GEICO violated the implicit duties of good faith and fair dealing contained therein. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
To the extent that their abuse of process claim is predicated on this case or any other civil RICO action, the mere commencement of a lawsuit cannot serve as a basis for a cause of action alleging abuse of process.
MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
GEICO’s motion to dismiss the Clarke Defendants’ counterclaims was granted; accordingly, those claims were dismissed. Its motion to strike the Clarke Defendants’ affirmative defenses was granted with respect to the Clarke Defendants’ Third, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Third affirmative defenses; it is denied in all other respects. GEICO’s request to stay discovery pending adjudication of this motion is denied as moot.
ZALMA OPINION
States like New York have made insurance fraud – like that brought in the suit against the Clarke Defendants – only to do little or nothing to prosecute the crime. GEICO, frustrated as a victim of fraud, has become proactive and works to take the profit out of the crime of insurance fraud. They, and other proactive insurers, are becoming successful in New York and other states and should be emulated by other victims 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/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
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 X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
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 ...
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, ...
