Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
July 12, 2024
The Phantom Rolls Royce

A Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gqcfYbjJ, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gXziKNSV and at https://lnkd.in/gN3NDmX2; and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.

Post 4832

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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.

In many states, before a car can be insured, the agent must photograph the car and its vehicle identification number. This regulation is an effective weapon against fraudulent auto theft claims and some states has been removed.

THE INSURED

The insured managed to purchase material damage insurance on a Rolls Royce in a state where the regulation was fully effective even though he never owned a Rolls Royce automobile. His technique was flawless. His planning immaculate. He was only thwarted in his efforts because of the actions of a dedicated and thorough investigator.

To start his plan, the insured went to a Beverly Hills classic automobile dealer and took two Polaroid photographs (slightly out of focus) of a 1946 Rolls Royce. Unlike modern cars, the vehicle identification number was not in the windshield of the Rolls. It was, however, written on the specification sheet provided to him by the dealer.

The insured next began the effort to create an artificial 1946 Rolls Royce. First, he visited the California Department of Motor Vehicles. He obtained from the department forms for the issuance of replacement title and registration documents.

He filled the documents out using a vehicle identification number similar to the one in the showroom, but 2000 digits higher. He also filled out a sworn declaration of lost title and signed it with the name John Jones, vice president, Lincoln Savings & Loan, the lender. The Department of Motor Vehicles processed his application for lost title and registration without inquiry. A new ownership certificate showing ownership in Lincoln Savings & Loan was then issued and delivered to the insured’s post office box.

The insured then filled out a Department of Motor Vehicles bill of sale, reflecting that the Rolls Royce was sold by Lincoln Savings & Loan to his neighbor for a total of $5,500.00. The Department of Motor Vehicles billed the neighbor for license plates and registration based on the value of the sale. The insured captured the mail before it was delivered to the neighbor and paid the bill with a post office issued money order.

The insured then forged the signature of his neighbor on the ownership certificate transferring title to himself. A new bill of sale was again recorded, reflecting a purchase price of $45,600.00 by the insured from his neighbor. He then paid the license fees and requested plates and a certificate claiming the old license plates had been lost or stolen.

At his local public library, the insured read through a classic car magazine and found that 1946 Rolls Royces in fair condition were selling for approximately $100,000. He also learned that the Classic Car Insurance Company was willing to insure classic cars (with limited use) by mail. He photocopied the application for insurance at the library photocopy machine and applied for a $100,000 policy on his 1946 Rolls Royce. The Insured attached to the application one of the Polaroid photographs he had taken at the dealership.

THE INVESTIGATION

Classic Car Insurance Company, taking his application on face value, issued the policy. Since the Insured advised Classic Car Insurance Company that the car was only to be driven 1,000 or less miles a year, the premium on the policy, including third party liability coverage, was less than $1,000. The insured financed the premium with a local insurance financing company and only had to make a $200 down payment. His first payment was due thirty (30) days later.

Two days before the payment was due, the insured telephoned the Los Angeles County Sheriff from a Denny’s restaurant in Lakewood, California and reported his Rolls Royce stolen. He told the police he had taken it to the restaurant for lunch and when he returned it was gone.

The police dutifully took down the report and began looking for the 1946 Phantom Rolls Royce. The insured made a report to Classic Car Insurance Company and immediately, in response to its request, submitted a sworn declaration of auto total theft making claim for $100,000.

Classic Car Insurance Company, as required by California law, maintains a special investigation unit. When the report came in a computer search was performed. The search revealed that other claims payments and a three-year-old theft loss of a classic Mercedes Benz was reported by a person with the same last name as the insured.

The old file was taken out of archives and it was determined that the vehicle was owned by the insured’s mother, but was being driven by him when it was stolen from a restaurant parking lot. The Classic Car Insurance Company had paid the insured’s mother $75,000 for the loss of her Mercedes. The coincidence was too great to ignore.

The investigator began to do the work he was trained to do. He first checked the database maintained by the National Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau (NICB) and learned the following:

1 The insured has been the reported victim of two automobile accidents and a residential burglary not reported on the application for insurance.
2 The insured had been convicted, at age 19, of four counts of forgery of checks causing a bank to lose over a million dollars. He had been sentenced to ninety days in jail and five years of probation for this offense.
3 The Rolls Royce Motor Company publishes a book of all vehicles manufactured by it with their vehicle identification numbers.
4 The VIN number of the insured’s Rolls Royce was not in the book.

The investigator then obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles all of the original sales documents and was surprised to learn that the vehicle Classic Car Insurance Company had insured for $100,000 was reported by the insured to have been purchased for $5,600.

Counsel was retained to represent Classic Car Insurance Company and to examine the insured under oath. At examination under oath, the insured proved himself to be a facile liar. His skill at lying under oath was no match for the facts counsel had from the SIU investigator. Counsel lead the insured down a path of lies. The insured claimed to have purchased the vehicle for $100,000 cash which he obtained from his business, an escort service. He explained he kept the cash at home because it was earnings he did not wish recorded in a bank account.

He produced a bill of sale purportedly signed by the neighbor reflecting a $100,000 sale. The insured produced the ownership certificate and the registration establishing the vehicle existed. He claimed to have forgotten to bring with him the keys to the vehicle. Counsel then presented the true documents, item by item.

The insured claimed that the documents recorded at the Department of Motor Vehicles were filed by the seller and he had no knowledge of the changes made by the seller. In fact, he could not understand why the seller had filed such strange documents.

After counsel had established, with certainly in counsel’s mind, that the insured had sworn falsely, the examination under oath was terminated. Counsel met with the attorney for the insured, privately, and explained that the insured’s claim was in great peril.

The attorney for the insured responded: “The bad faith lawsuit I told you to expect will not be filed by me.”

The insured had made one serious error: he hired an honest lawyer. His lawyer and counsel for the Classic Car Insurance Company discussed possible resolution of the matter, including the withdrawal of the claim or a mutual rescission of the policy. Counsel for the insured promised to speak with his client and communicate with the insurer.

The next day, the insured’s lawyer called counsel for the insurer and said:

“I have conferred with my client who recognizes that his title to the Rolls is not clear. He instructed me to advise you that he is withdrawing his claim.”

“I recognize that your client has a duty to report potential fraudulent claims to the State Bureau of Fraudulent Claims. We request that you do no more than you are required by law to do.”

Classic Car Insurance Company saved a $100,000 claim. It spent $30,000 investigating the claim and defeating it. It was lucky. No litigation followed. It reported the loss to the state’s Fraud Bureau who now has the insured’s name on record. There has been no prosecution.

No prosecution is anticipated or expected. The Fraud Bureau is simply inundated with fraudulent insurance claims and must limit its prosecutorial efforts to major crimes that exceed $1,000,000 or rings of insurance fraud perpetrators who file multiple claims.

ZALMA OPINION

Insurance fraud is estimated by the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud to take about $308 Billion from the insurance industry every year. That estimate is a small percentage of real insurance fraud since most fraud succeeds and like this Rolls Royce claim, are never counted as a fraud regardless how much it cost to defeat the fraud.

Adapted from my book Insurance Fraud Costs Everyone Available as a Kindle Book and Available as a Paperback from Amazon.com.

(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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

00:13:53
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

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 ...

00:05:14
10 hours ago
Restitution Sentence Affirmed

Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851

Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay

In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.

A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.

At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...

post photo preview
September 23, 2026
Payment and Performance Bonds Are Not Designed to Profit from Failure to Perform

The Collateral-Source Rule is a Narrow Exception to the Prohibition Against Double Recovery

Post 4850

Posted on September 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma

A Surety Stands In The Principal’s Shoes And May Assert The Principal’s Defenses.

In Hudson Insurance Company v. Archer Western Federal, JV, No. 1:24-cv-544 (PTG/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division (September 18, 2026) Archer Western Federal, JV (“AWF”), the prime contractor for a new fire station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, subcontracted roofing work to Eastern General Contractor, Inc. (“EGC”) for $456,330.

Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) issued payment and performance bonds, each with a $456,330 penal sum.

AWF later sought recovery under both bonds.

LAW

Under Virginia law, the collateral-source rule is a narrow exception to the prohibition against double recovery. A surety stands in the principal’s shoes and may assert the principal’s defenses. Liability under the bonds required EGC’s ...

post photo preview
September 22, 2026
Fraudsters May Not Enjoin Suit Alleging Fraudulent PIP Claims

Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.

While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)

After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals