CONVICTION FOR INSURANCE FRAUD AFFIRMED
Post 4984
UNSUCCESSFUL FAKE ACCIDENT STILL GOES TO JAIL
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gBvuyK3F, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWJAwz_h and at https://lnkd.in/gf9_pqzn and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
THE PEOPLE v. STEPHEN R. JACKSON, H052419, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (January 23, 2025) Jackson tried to have his felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor because of Proposition 47.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 1992, Jackson was charged by information with conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, causing or participating in a vehicular collision or any other vehicular accident for the purpose of presenting a false or fraudulent claim; presenting or causing to be presented a false or fraudulent insurance claim; presenting a false or fraudulent claim for loss or theft, destruction, damage, or conversion of the contents of a motor vehicle; and, preparing a false police report and authorization of medical records/employment records with intent to present it in support of a false or fraudulent claim. Jackson was convicted by plea of count 2, violation of Insurance Code section 1871.1, subdivision (a)(3), a felony, and placed on felony probation.
In 2024, Jackson filed an application to have his felony conviction designated as a misdemeanor
Proposition 47, approved in November 2014, makes certain drug-and theft-related offenses misdemeanors. Nothing in the relevant statute bases the punishment for the crime of participating in a vehicular collision for the purpose of presenting a false claim on the value of the property or claim at issue.
In addition to alleging that the value of the claim at issue in his conviction should make him eligible for relief under section 1170.18, subdivision (f), Jackson argued that he “was never given a check,” “never saw the check”, and that he “didn’t destroy any property or damage any property.”
ANALYSIS
Stephen R. Jackson’s appeal was based on his conviction for causing or participating in a vehicular collision to present a false or fraudulent claim. He argued that under Proposition 47, which reduces certain property theft crimes to misdemeanors when the value is $950 or less, his offense should also be reclassified since the value of the checks was under $950.
Key Points
1. Both before and after Proposition 47, Jackson’s offense was classified as a felony under Insurance Code section 1871.1 and current Penal Code section 550.
2. The legislature intended to treat causing or participating in a vehicular collision for the purpose of presenting a false claim as a felony, regardless of the value of the claim.
3. The punishment for Jackson’s crime does not depend on the claim’s value, unlike other offenses under Insurance Code section 1871.1 and section 550, which are misdemeanors if the claim is below certain amounts.
Conclusion
The trial court properly denied Jackson’s section 1170.18, subdivision (f) petition to redesignate his felony conviction for causing or participating in a vehicular collision or any other vehicular accident for the purpose of presenting a false or fraudulent claim as a misdemeanor.
ZALMA OPINION
The people of California did away with most of Proposition 47 but it was in effect when Jackson was convicted. However, since his crime, auto insurance fraud, is always a felony even if he was so incompetent he made nothing from his crime, he was properly convicted and the court refused to change his felony to a misdemeanor. There is no excuse for committing insurance fraud and even if the fraud failed to make any money for Jackson he committed the crime. Jackson was probably caught, tried and convicted because he was an incompetent criminal and must now continue to live with the shame of a felony conviction.
(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
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
