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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
