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?
January 09, 2025
Criminal Defendant Must Pay Full Restitution

Posted on January 9, 2025 by Barry Zalma

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO OFFSET FOR VICTIMS INSURANCE

Post 4967

Insurer that Pays Insured for Damages Caused by Criminal is also a Victim Entitled to Restitution

The State charged defendant-appellant Kaliah Haskett with criminal damaging after she kicked the rear liftgate of a vehicle. Haskett pleaded guilty and the trial court ordered her to pay more than $3,000 in restitution for repairs to the vehicle, including replacing the vehicle’s bumper.

In State Of Ohio v. Kaliah Haskett, 2024-Ohio-5933, Appeal No. C-240242, Court of Appeals of Ohio (December 20, 2024) found that Haskett was required to pay restitution for her crime.

Haskett asserted that the trial court should have limited its restitution award to the value of the complaining witness’s insurance deductible. She further argued that the trial court erred by including in the restitution award the cost of replacing the bumper and by limiting her cross-examination of the complaining witness on the witness’s prior inconsistent statements.

Ohio requires a trial court to reduce the restitution award by any recovery that a complaining witness has received. However, a trial court is not required to offset a complaining witness’s restitution award due to a potential insurance claim.

Factual And Procedural History A. Haskett Pleads Guilty To Criminal Damaging

In August 2023, the State charged Haskett with criminal damaging, a second-degree misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that Haskett “rip[ed] off the fuel cap of the [complaining witness’s] van and kick[ed] the rear lift gate in a fit of rage causing a significant dent.” Haskett pleaded guilty to the offense.
Restitution Hearing And Sentencing

P.W., the complaining witness, testified at the restitution hearing that she owned a “2008 Dodge Caravan” and that Haskett damaged it by kicking the vehicle. P.W. received a $3,323.96 estimate for the repairs.

P.W. testified that she had insurance covering her vehicle, but she did not want to make a claim through her insurance “[b]ecause my insurance didn’t have anything to do with the damage that she did. And my insurance will go up. And I don’t feel like that’s fair that I have to use my insurance to pay for the damage that she did.” P.W. stated that her insurance deductible was $500.

Haskett asked P.W. about statements she made to police on the day of the incident. Haskett’s counsel noted that there were two dents on the back of P.W.’s vehicle, and that on the day of the incident, P.W. told law enforcement that Haskett caused only one of the dents. P.W. stated that Haskett caused both dents.

The trial court stated that because P.W. had not received an insurance payment, she was not required to submit an insurance claim and could recover the full value of the estimate.

The trial court awarded P.W. $3,323.96 in restitution and sentenced Haskett to 90 days in jail with 90 days suspended and two years of community control.

ANALYSIS

Restitution

Following a misdemeanor conviction, the trial court may order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount based on the victim’s economic loss. “Economic loss” is defined as any economic detriment suffered by a victim as a direct and proximate result of the commission of an offense. Restitution is limited to the actual loss caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct.
Insurance Coverage

Haskett asserted that the trial court erred because it awarded restitution beyond the amount of P.W.’s deductible. P.W. testified that her vehicle was insured but she chose not to file an insurance claim.

In Ohio courts have concluded that if a victim maintains an insurance policy covering the damages caused by a defendant and has received insurance payments, then the amount of restitution should be set at the amount of the deductible, not the amount of the damage. Ohio courts conclude that if the victim has insurance that reimbursed her for part or all of the loss that occurred as a result of the offender’s criminal conduct, the victim has not suffered an economic loss for the purposes of imposing restitution.

While these cases provide that a victim’s restitution award should be offset if the victim receives compensation from a third party, they do not state that a victim must file an insurance claim.

Ohio’s statutes do not require a trial court to limit a restitution award merely because a victim purchased an insurance policy and may submit a claim. At the time of the restitution hearing, P.W.’s “economic loss” was $3,323.96. Had P.W. received insurance payments to cover some of that amount, her actual economic loss would be reduced and transferred to her insurance company. Since she recovered nothing from her insurer and Haskett points to no statutory mechanism for forcing a complaining witness to pursue recovery from collateral sources before seeking restitution.

Haskett’s guilty plea was not an admission that Haskett caused whatever damages P.W. claimed at the restitution hearing. A defendant is permitted to dispute the amount of restitution. Because P.W. asserted damages beyond those listed in the complaint, the trial court should have permitted Haskett to cross-examine P.W. about her prior inconsistent statements.

That error was harmless. P.W. testified that the damage to the liftgate-damage Haskett admitted causing-necessitated replacing the bumper. Therefore, the trial court properly awarded P.W. the cost to replace both parts of the vehicle.

ZALMA OPINION

Although only $3,323.96 was involved between the defendant and the victim this case is important to the insurance industry. If the victim had made a claim to her insurer and been paid she would get a windfall if she received full restitution and the insurance proceeds. The defendants obligation to pay restitution would not be eliminated since, by its right of subrogation, the insurer would step in the shoes of its insured as a victim of the crime and be entitled to restitution in accordance with state law. If the insurers rights were ignored the criminal defendant would profit from the crime. In such a fact situation every insurer that paid indemnity to its insured because of the acts of a convicted defendant the insurer must, as a victim of the crime, demand restitution.

(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

00:09:45
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
15 hours ago
Ambiguity in Insurance Contract Resolved by Jury

Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.

In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.

BACKGROUND

Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....

00:07:02
June 23, 2025
The Clear Language Of The Insurance Contract Controls

Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy

In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.

The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS

Parties Involved:

CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...

00:08:22
June 20, 2025
Four Corners of Suit Allows Refusal to Defend

Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries

Post 5103

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded

In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)

Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that

1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.

Presently before the Court are two ...

00:08:29
May 15, 2025
Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter - May 15, 2025

ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:

Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness

To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness

In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...

May 15, 2025
CGL Is Not a Medical Malpractice Policy

Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective

Post 5073

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.

This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.

In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:

Insurance Coverage Dispute:

Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...

April 30, 2025
The Devil’s in The Details

A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062

Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma

"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that 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."

Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud

People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.

The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...

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