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
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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
