Prior Conviction for Insurance Fraud Material to Decision of Insurer
Post 4857
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gKkrQzDu, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gssJGShm and at https://lnkd.in/gVktgyeY and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Jose Palma appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Allied Trust Insurance Co that found a lie about a prior insurance fraud conviction was a material misrepresentation causing the insurer to rescind the policy.
In Jose Palma v. Allied Trust Insurance Co., No. 14-23-00063-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (August 13, 2024) the Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Palma purchased an insurance policy for his home with Allied. During the policy period, there was a fire at Palma’s home. Palma submitted an insurance claim under the policy only to be faced with the discover of a prior conviction for insurance fraud that was not disclosed on his application for insurance. Allied rescinded the policy stating that Palma’s misrepresentation rendered the policy void and that it would not have insured Palma had Palma disclosed his prior insurance fraud conviction.
Palma sued Allied for breach of contract, and a litany of bad faith charges. Allied answered and asserted the defense that it rescinded the policy because of Palma’s “material misrepresentation” among other affirmative defenses.
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Allied moved for summary judgment concluding that the policy issued to Palma is void due to Palma’s material misrepresentation in the policy application that he was never convicted of insurance fraud. Allied argued that Palma misrepresented material facts and in support of these elements, Allied submitted five exhibits: the policy application; the policy; the “DocuSign certification of completion;” correspondence with insurance agent; and Palma’s criminal conviction for insurance fraud.
The trial court rendered a final summary judgment in favor of Allied.
Misrepresentation in Insurance Application
Palma argued that whether a misrepresentation is material is a question of fact both under the Insurance Code and common law and, therefore, summary judgment was improper. Allied countered that there was ample, undisputed evidence in the record to show that Palma’s misrepresentation was material and no evidence to the contrary.
ANALYSIS
The policy application included a statement that Palma agreed the policy would be void “if such information is false or misleading in any way that would affect the premium charged or eligibility of the risk based on company underwriting guidelines.”
The purpose of a summary judgment is to provide a method of summarily terminating a case when it clearly appears that only a question of law is involved and that there is no genuine issue of fact. Various elements of claims may be a “question of fact” where there is an actual, genuine dispute between the parties about the facts. However, when no genuine issues of material facts exist, a court may properly grant summary judgment because there are no facts to find.
Allied submitted its undisputed evidence establishing its affirmative defense. Palma did not respond with evidence to dispute the facts as stated by Allied.
Put simply, the plain language of the statute indicates that a policy provision rendering the policy void or voidable for any false statement is a defense if the insurer demonstrates the misrepresentation was material to the risk or contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy became payable or due. None of these requirements obviates the insurer’s ability to obtain summary judgment on its defense when the facts are undisputed.
ZALMA OPINION
A convicted insurance criminal lied on an application for insurance, obtained a policy based on the lie, only to have his home catch fire and burn resulting in a major claim. The insurer learned of the conviction by searching public records and, based on the lie, rescinded the policy from its inception because of the material misrepresentation about the plaintiff’s criminal record and prior conviction for insurance fraud. The court affirmed the rescission.
(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.
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...
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 ...
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 ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
