Allstate Proactively Moves to Take the Profit Out of Insurance Fraud
Post 4974
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZtC28zc, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfgi7NnQ and at https://lnkd.in/gU7eWAmz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
THE ISSUES
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division was faced with a need to resolve whether claims of insurance fraud under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (the Fraud Act), N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 to -30, and the New Jersey Anti-Racketeering Act (RICO), N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 to -6.2, are subject to arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35.
In Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, et al v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, PC, et al, No. A-0778-23, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (January 9, 2025) resolved the issues presented requiring statutory interpretation., The Superior Court Appellate Division held that insurance fraud claims under the Fraud Act and RICO are not subject to PIP arbitration under AICRA and that the Plaintiffs are permitted to pursue their claims in the Law Division, with the right to a jury triaL
THE PARTIES
Plaintiffs are six related insurance companies (plaintiffs or collectively Allstate). Allstate provides no-fault automobile insurance policies in New Jersey, under which insureds can recover PIP benefits if they are injured in an automobile accident. When insureds receive medical treatment, they may, and typically do, assign their PIP benefits to their medical providers. The medical providers can then seek payment from insurers, like Allstate.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In March 2023, Allstate filed a nine-count complaint against over thirty defendants, including several medical practices, the owners of those practices, and current and former physicians and administrators working at or with those medical practices. Allstate alleged that from 2008 through 2022, defendants conspired to obtain over $1.7 million in PIP benefits from Allstate through more than 800 fraudulent and misleading medical claims. In its complaint, Allstate asserts that defendants' actions violated the Fraud Act and RICO. Allstate also contends that certain defendants violated the Corporate Practice of Medicine Doctrine, N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.16, and New Jersey's Anti Self-Referral Law, N.J.S.A. 45:9-22.4 to -22.9.
Allstate alleged that numerous defendants engaged in kickback schemes, illegal self-referrals, and patterns of fraud and racketeering in providing the services for which defendants obtained payments from Allstate. Allstate seeks damages, including the disgorgement of over $1 .7 million that Allstate paid to defendants, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
The trial court entered three orders granting the moving defendants' request to compel all claims asserted by Allstate to arbitration under a statute known as AICRA.
THE FRAUD ACT
The Fraud Act was enacted in 1983 "to confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey." N.J.S.A. 17:33A-2. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that private parties in an action brought under the Fraud Act have a right to a jury trial because the Fraud Act provides legal relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages and because a Fraud Act claim is comparable to common-law fraud.
RICO
The Legislature enacted RICO to safeguard the public interest to prevent, disrupt, and eliminate the infiltration of organized crime type activities which are substantial in nature into the legitimate trade or commerce of this State. Modeled on the federal statute, RICO provides a private cause of action.
NO-FAULT INSURANCE AND AICRA
New Jersey operates under a no-fault automobile insurance system, which includes AICRA enacted in 1998, established a resolution system to expeditiously resolve disputes regarding the amount or legitimacy of PIP claims. The Commissioner implemented regulations that provide that a request for arbitration of a "PIP dispute" can be made by the injured party, the insured, the provider who is an assignee of PIP benefits, or the insurer.
INTERPRETING AND HARMONIZING THE FRAUD ACT, RICO, AND AICRA
PIP regulations and PIP arbitration process are designed to expeditiously address disputes concerning the payment of medical expenses. Unlike arbitration and the statute implementing it, the goal of the Fraud Act is to confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey and RICO has the goal of eliminating activities that present a serious threat to the political, social and economic institutions of this State.
THE POTENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
The New Jersey Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial to causes of action-even statutory causes of action-that sound in law rather than equity. The New Jersey Constitution provides a right to jury trial for claims under the Fraud Act and RICO. Neither are subject to PIP Arbitration. Therefore, the orders compelling plaintiffs' claims to PIP arbitration were reversed and vacated.
ZALMA OPINION
Forcing insurers who believe they were defrauded to arbitration clearly was designed to deprive the victim of insurance fraud (in this case Allstate) of the constitutional right to a jury trial to take the profit out of the crime of insurance fraud by forcing each dispute into individual arbitration where the results will be different while a jury trial will allow Allstate to prove the schemes of fraud that has fraudulently taken Allstate's money. Allstate has the right to get its money back plus treble damages under RICO. Allstate should be honored for taking down those who commit fraud.
(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
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 ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
Title Insurance Only Insures Real Property
Posted on October 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
When a Seller Advised it Could Not Obtain Title to the Home Fraud Can’t be Proved
A Manufactured Home is Personal Property Until it Becomes Real Property
Post 4862
In Dale Johnson and Rose Johnson, Husband and Wife v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and Lennar Mortgage, LLC; Low Va Rates, LLC; Sandpoint Title Insurance, Inc.; Village Capital & Investment, LLC; and David Cassel, Engineer Agent; and Unknown Does 1-50, inclusively, No. 53126, Court of Appeals of Idaho (October 9, 2026) Dale and Rose Johnson purchased Idaho real property in 2012 with a manufactured home on it. Their purchase addendum acknowledged that the seller could not obtain title to the home, that evidence of title and an ALTA-7 endorsement might not be available, and that they accepted the home “as is.”
In 2020, after a HELOC application was denied, the Johnsons learned that the home had been wrecked and decertified in 2004 and that its 2006 conversion to real ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
