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
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 ....
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. ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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...
