Criminal Investigation of Insurance Fraud Without Indictment Not Grounds for Stay of Civil Action
Post 4828
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gsJrsuz5, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2cGwFh7 and at https://lnkd.in/gpHUbHfU and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Defendant Kith Furniture, LLC’s moved to stay the proceedings brought by Liberty Mutual in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kith Furniture, LLC, No. 6:23-cv-01130-LSC, United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Jasper Division (July 1, 2024) and the District Court resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Kith Furniture, LLC’s moved to stay the proceedings brought by Liberty Mutual in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kith Furniture, LLC, No. 6:23-cv-01130-LSC, United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Jasper Division (July 1, 2024) and the District Court resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Kith’s furniture plant and inventory were allegedly damaged in a tornado. While investigating Kith’s insurance claim, Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company learned information that called Kith’s claim into question and warranted further investigation. Kith insisted that Liberty continue making payments under the policy “during the pendency of this investigation.”
Liberty sued seeking a declaration that it need not continue making payments until it concludes its investigation. Simultaneously the Alabama Department of Insurance, Fraud Bureau opened an investigation into Kith’s insurance claim.
Liberty amended its complaint to add a new claim alleging fraud and Liberty alleged that Kith employees “intentionally damaged” “almost $500,000 worth” of “furniture that [Kith] could no longer sell to make it look like it had been damaged in the tornado.” Kith asked the Court to stay all proceedings in this action pending the Alabama Department of Insurance’s criminal investigation.
DISCUSSION
Kith contended that it will be substantially prejudiced by having to defend itself in this action while simultaneously facing a parallel criminal investigation. Liberty countered that, if this Court stays this action, Liberty will be substantially prejudiced by the very real risk that evidence would be lost and memories would fade.
This Case Significantly Overlaps The Related Criminal Investigation.
The Alabama Department of Insurance opened its criminal investigation on the very insurance claim at issue here. Kith asserted that the investigation and this case “involve the same legal theories and alleged conduct by Kith,” and are “practically identical.” Liberty dismissed Kith’s assertions as “entirely speculative,” emails exchanged between Liberty and a criminal investigator tend to corroborate Kith’s assertions.
Kith Has No Fifth Amendment Rights.
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to non-natural entities. Courts routinely hold parallel criminal proceedings and do not entitle corporate defendants to a stay of civil proceedings.
There Are No Pending Criminal Proceedings.
Among Liberty’s attempts to distinguish this case from those cited by Kith, one fact stands out: here, there are no pending or imminent criminal proceedings. The record does not indicate that anyone has been indicted, charged, or arrested for any crime related to this insurance dispute. The lack of pending or imminent criminal proceedings makes any potential avoidance of prejudice to Kith or any potential conservation of judicial resources by granting a stay entirely speculative.
Liberty Faces Potential Prejudice From Delayed Proceedings.
Liberty argued that staying this case would be putting Liberty’s civil action on the shelf to grow cold without the benefit of a criminal prosecution against Kith.
Although Alabama’s ongoing investigation somewhat mitigates the risk that evidence will be lost and memories will fade, the current absence of any arrests or criminal charges failed to assure the Court that Alabama’s investigation will be sufficiently “brief” and “exhaustive” to shield Liberty from all prejudice. This factor weighs heavily in Liberty’s favor. Therefore, Defendant Kith Furniture, LLC’s motion to stay proceedings was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Liberty found evidence of fraud and needed to move forward with its action before evidence became lost or forgotten. A criminal investigation without an arrest or indictment is nothing more than that: an investigation. There was no reason for a stay of the civil action. My experience makes clear that state investigations into insurance fraud seldom result in arrest or trial while a civil action asserting fraud can be brought to trial quickly without the need a criminal investigation has to prove the fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.
(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/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 ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
