More Prosecution is Needed to Deter Insurance Fraud
Post 4826
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gVw4MFZZ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gghQy4N9 and at https://lnkd.in/ggpJh3vy and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Thomas Orville McLaughlin II was convicted of committing a fraudulent insurance act, making a false information, and interfering with law enforcement. He appealed claiming several of the State’s exhibits were improperly admitted and that a defense witness was improperly excluded.
In State of Kansas v. Thomas Orville McLaughlin II, No. 124,221, Court of Appeals of Kansas (June 21, 2024) McLaughlin sought relief from his conviction for insurance fraud.
MCLAUGHLIN REPORTS A HOME BURGLARY AND IS LATER CONVICTED
On August 2, 2016, Thomas McLaughlin reported a burglary. He contacted law enforcement and later spoke to Officer Travis Debarge about the burglary. McLaughlin advised the officer that his storage container had been robbed and three ATVs were missing. The following day, McLaughlin also spoke to Detective Mark Montague about the burglary at his residence. During their conversation, McLaughlin presented the detective with a list of stolen items, including tools, TVs, guns, and jewelry.
At trial, the State presented photographs that showed McLaughlin moving a TV and other items out of his house the night before the alleged burglary.
In making his insurance claim, McLaughlin was required to provide documentation of the ATVs’ purchase. At trial, Melissa Webber from Progressive testified about McLaughlin’s inconsistent statements, noting how, at first, McLaughlin said that he did not have one of the ATV titles. He had claimed that the titles and bills of sale for the ATVS were not available because they were kept in a safe that was later reported stolen. Yet in the same interview, McLaughlin told Webber that the title was destroyed in a house fire a year prior. Webber had recorded her conversations with McLaughlin. The recording was played at the trial.
At trial, McLaughlin’s ex-wife Skye Gaskell, testified about McLaughlin’s and her actions toward defrauding the insurance company. Her trial testimony also included admitting that she had lied to the insurance investigators both in their initial investigation and during her sworn statements taken in her deposition. The jury also heard evidence that Gaskell still possessed some of the reportedly stolen tools from the alleged burglary.
Two of the State’s witnesses-Hundley and Montague-both testified that it was McLaughlin who submitted the false documents. And it was McLaughlin who purchased the insurance for the ATVs. For each of the three ATVs, the State showed how the ATVs were not owned by McLaughlin during the period that he had claimed and presented evidence of McLauglin’s actions towards his claimed ownership.
The jury convicted McLaughlin of committing a fraudulent insurance act, making false information and interference with law enforcement. He was sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended for 24 months of probation.
ZALMA OPINION
Considering the light sentence for a serious, planned, premeditated insurance fraud, McLaughlin had the unmitigated gall to appeal the conviction ignoring the detailed evidence of his fraud and the testimony of his co-conspirator-wife who only married him for his money. More prosecutions of insurance fraud perpetrators are needed and when convicted the sentence needs to be severe to deter others from attempting insurance fraud who might be more competent at fraud than McLaughlin.
(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 the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkPlease tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
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, ...
