STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO FIGHT FRAUD INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE PEOPLE CLAIMING NO FAULT INJURIES UNDER OATH
Apparent Staged Accident Requires EUO to Investigate Potential Fraud
Post 4995
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dFjdki5U, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/d-hCyknM and at https://lnkd.in/dFSmFYyk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts, and https://open.substack.com/pub/barryzalma/p/trial-court-incorrectly-refused-insurers?r=nblph&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true.
The trial court initially denied Allstate’s suit stating that Allstate failed to show good cause and did not cite any contractual provision compelling the Appellees to provide information in an examination under oath (“EUO”). Allstate argued that it had a duty to investigate suspected insurance fraud and that the Appellees had a contractual obligation to submit to EUOs.
In Allstate Property And Casualty Insurance Company v. Gloria E. Companioni; Isair H. Lubo-Rodriguez; and Mercedes H. Cervantes, No. 2023-CA-1012-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (February 7, 2025) resolved the dispute.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated the trial court’s total denial of the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the trial court overlooked contractual provisions allowing Allstate to conduct EUOs and binding precedent that permits inquiries into accident-related issues. The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider whether good cause exists to allow questioning pertaining to medical treatment and solicitation, following the principles set forth in Deadwyler v. Grange Property and Casualty Insurance Company.
The appellate court’s decision emphasized the importance of allowing insurers to conduct thorough investigations, especially when there are concerns about potential fraud. The case highlights the balance between protecting claimants’ rights and ensuring that insurers can fulfill their duty to investigate claims thoroughly.
FACTS
Gloria Companioni was driving a car insured by Allstate which was in an accident with another car. Appellees Isair Lubo-Rodriguez and Mercedes Cervantes were allegedly riding in the car Companioni was driving when the accident happened. All three resided in Kentucky.
Four days after the accident, all three Appellees commenced care at Total Health Chiropractic and Rehab (“Total Health”). The next day (five days after the accident), Appellees submitted Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) applications through counsel. Appellees requested reimbursement for medical treatment resulting from the accident and for any coverage available, including coverage for basic reparations benefits (“BRB”).
Allstate filed a suit for an EUO pursuant to Kentucky statutes.
ANALYSIS
Trial Court Erred in Finding Allstate Failed to Cite a Contractual Provision Which Required Appellees to Submit to EUOs
The trial court overlooked policy provisions relating to EUOs, but it also overlooked pertinent authority allowing inquiries into predominantly accident-related issues in EUOs. In sum, its total denial of the EUO petition cannot stand and must be vacated with the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
The appellate court directed the trial court to consider its guidance in considering anew whether good cause exists to permit questioning about matters of medical treatment and/or solicitation via EUO and, if so, to establish any appropriate limits on such questioning.
The trial court’s total denial of the EUO petition was vacated and remanded for the trial court to issue a new order allowing an EUO at least regarding purely accident-related issues, to reconsider whether good cause exists to permit inquiries pertaining to medical treatment and solicitation, and to provide direction to the parties as to the permissible scope of inquiry.
ZALMA OPINION
Kentucky, like most states, requires insurers to maintain a Special Fraud Investigative Unit to help the state defeat insurance fraud and to protect every insurer doing business in the state from damages from fraud. Allstate, faced with an apparent staged accident sought to examine the parties claiming injury under oath in its effort to fully investigate a potential insurance fraud. The trial court refused but the Court of Appeals of Kentucky reversed requiring the trial court to approve the EUOs.
(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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
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 ...
