Daniel Carpenter Guilty of $30 Million Fraud Out of Prison and Fights Collection of Judgment
Keeping the Proceeds of Fraud Refused by Tenth Circuit
Post 4966
Universitas Education, LLC sued to recover funds it lost in an elaborate insurance fraud scheme perpetrated by convicted felon Daniel Carpenter. The underlying litigation occurred in the Southern District of New York, leading to a civil judgment against multiple defendants. Among the corporate entities allegedly used to perpetrate the fraud was Avon Capital, LLC and several of its affiliates located in Oklahoma, Nevada, and Wyoming. Universitas sought to garnish a $6.7 million insurance portfolio held by SDM Holdings, which Avon owns, located in Oklahoma.
In Universitas Education, LLC v. Avon Capital, LLC, Nos. 23-6125, 23-6167, 23-6126, 23-6168, 24-6066, 24-6033, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (December 31, 2024), after registering the judgment in Oklahoma, Universitas sought summary judgment on its entitlement to the funds.
The district court entered summary judgment for Universitas and authorized a receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM appealed, claiming a myriad of procedural defects and disputes on the merits. After an adverse appellate decision the court again entered judgment in favor of Universitas after Universitas re-registered the New York judgment. The district court re-entered summary judgment in its favor, and reauthorized the receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM challenged that ruling, claiming the district court lost jurisdiction over the claims and that Universitas did not properly revive them as required by Oklahoma law.
BACKGROUND
Fraud Resulted in Criminal Conviction of Daniel Carpenter
Carpenter had devised and carried out an insurance fraud scheme that, among other wrongdoing, defrauded Universitas of $30 million in life insurance proceeds. The fraud was uncovered, and Mr. Carpenter was convicted for his crimes.
In its efforts to recover losses, Universitas sued in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants a group of Mr. Carpenter’s corporate entities. One of those entities was Avon Capital, LLC, a Connecticut company.
Universitas eventually secured a judgment in that suit for $30.6 million in 2014, of which $6.7 million was against Avon Capital, LLC. Each of these Avon entities was ninety-nine percent owned by Carpenter Financial and one percent owned by Caroline Financial-both of which were controlled by Daniel Carpenter.
The district court referred cross-motions for summary judgment, along with follow-on evidentiary motions, to the magistrate judge, who issued a 73-page Report and Recommendation finding that the entities were “one and the same for purposes of their liability to Universitas.” The magistrate judge also determined that, because Avon-WY fraudulently acquired the SDM insurance portfolio using stolen funds (provided by Avon-NV), the insurance portfolio was subject to garnishment.
The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to Universitas over the objections of Avon and SDM. The district court traced the fraudulently transferred funds to Avon-WY’s acquisition of SDM Holdings life insurance portfolio and pierced Avon-WY’s corporate veil to allow Universitas to execute the judgment against the insurance portfolio.
In an order issued February 11, 2021, the district court enjoined Avon-WY from transferring or disbursing any of its interests in SDM and placed it into a receivership under Oklahoma law.
ANALYSIS
Avon and SDM raised a combined cascade of nineteen issues on appeal.
JURISDICTION AFTER THE MANDATE
Receivership
Avon and SDM argued that the district court erred by reappointing a receiver over Avon Capital-WY and its interests in SDM Holding. The appointment of the receiver rests on interpretation of an authorizing statute, the district court’s interpretation was reviewed and found to be proper.
CONCLUSION
In 2008, Mr. Carpenter stole $30 million worth of life insurance proceeds that were meant for Universitas. Universitas received its arbitration judgment against Mr. Carpenter and his entities, including Avon, in 2012. That judgment is valid for twenty years. Mr. Carpenter has been tried and convicted for his fraudulent business activities twice. See generally, United States v. Carpenter, 405 F.Supp.2d 85 (D. Mass. Dec. 15, 2005); United States v. Carpenter, 190 F.Supp.3d 260, 274 (D. Conn. June 6, 2016).
He has been sentenced and even fully served out those sentences in the years since Universitas first received its judgment.
While Mr. Carpenter’s debt to society may have been repaid, his entities’ debts to Universitas certainly have not and the judgment may be collected from the receivers.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud perpetrators, like Mr. Carpenter, prefer to spend time in jail rather than pay the victims of his crime by multiple motions, trials, appeals and obfuscation. This case put to rest Mr. Carpenter’s attempts to avoid payment to the victim of his fraud, Universitas and the lawyers will be forced to deal with the need to pay Universitas $30 million plus interest..
(c) 2025 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
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
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, ...
