Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
February 18, 2025
The Too Honest Jeweler

A True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud
Post 4997T

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpSDFFd6, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gsbbrJt6 and at https://lnkd.in/g9vz4XDf and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. This is just a taste of the article.

This is a fictionalized true crime story of insurance fraud explaining why insurance fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for insurers. The story that follows is designed to help everyone 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.

The jeweler had learned to cut diamonds in Antwerp. For ten years he worked in a small office grinding facets onto stones of half a carat or less. The boredom of the job infuriated him. He had no future.

He decided to immigrate to the United States where he could use his skills. He turned his savings into small diamonds which he purchased below wholesale from the marketplace in Antwerp. He started business immediately upon arrival, trading diamonds in the Los Angeles wholesale market. His knowledge as a cutter allowed him to make profitable trades and sales.

He came to the United States on a tourist visa. He knew that the only way he could become a legal permanent resident was to have a business in place. The income he derived from his sales was sufficient to allow him to live in Southern California, but not set up a business. He needed a large influx of cash.

After only a month working the wholesale jewelry market, the jeweler learned about insurance. It seemed to him that when they weren’t talking about gems all jewelers spoke about insurance. It was expensive. The insurers required them to install sophisticated alarm systems. The insurers required them to install safes that far exceeded any need of reasonable security.

Other, less honest, jewelers used their insurance company to make a bad year into a good year. Cheating an insurance company, they explained, is simple. The insurance company would accept whatever books and records a jeweler gave them. Thus, not marking sold on an item in an inventory book, he could sell a gem twice. First, it is sold to the customer. Second, when the jeweler reports a loss, robbery or burglary it is sold to the insurance company since it is still noted in his inventory as being present to steal.

The jeweler saw insurance as a way of setting up a permanent business and becoming a legal resident of the United States.

He got from his jeweler acquaintances the name of an insurance broker who asked few questions. He contacted that broker. He told the broker that he was a diamond salesman who operated his business from his home. The broker presented an application to Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London since no American markets would accept such a risk. The Underwriters at Lloyd’s refused to insure the jeweler because he had insufficient security at his apartment.

The jeweler was undaunted. He went to another insurance broker. This time he described his business premises as the location of one of his acquaintances. He put on the new application the address of the acquaintance. He also included the type of safe at the acquaintance’s premises, the type of alarm system and all other security devices of the premises. The jeweler described his inventory as $100,000 in loose diamonds.

The jeweler knew, but did not disclose to the insurer at the time he bought the policy, that his inventory consisted of many very small diamonds whose values totaled no more than $10,000. He created an inventory book describing $100,000 in diamonds by merely placing one or two 0’s after the total carat weight of the diamonds he had in inventory.

The broker submitted the proposal to three insurers, including the RLI Insurance, Chubb Insurance and Protection & Indemnity Company of Puerto Rico who was the only insurer willing to insure him. He was pleased to accept that policy.

One month later, he reported to Jewelers Protection & Indemnity Company that he had been the victim of an armed robbery. He had an appointment with a retail jeweler in Cerritos, California to show his loose diamonds. The jeweler arrived in Cerritos early and stopped at the local Denny’s to have lunch. He had all of his inventory in a small leather pouch in his inside coat pocket. It was a warm spring afternoon. When he pulled into the parking lot of Denny’s Restaurant, his window was rolled down. As he turned off his engine he looked to his left and saw a black man holding a chrome-plated pistol. The pistol pointed at the jeweler’s mouth. The black man demanded his wallet. The insured complied. The man instructed the insured to put his hand on the dash and his face on the steering wheel. Frightened, he did as they told him.

The black man than reached into the window and struck him across the forehead with the pistol. The jeweler was unconscious for a short time and awoke with his head slumped against the steering wheel. The thief must have reached into his coat pocket because the pouch containing the diamonds was gone.

The loss was highly suspicious. The insurer’s adjuster noted multiple red flags or indicators of insurance fraud:

1 It came soon after the policy was issued.
2 It happened in a way that appeared to be physically impossible.
3 The bruise was on the right side of the jeweler’s head.
4 It seemed that the armed robber would have had to reach in across the insured’s face and then double back with his pistol to strike him as described.

The insurer retained counsel to examine the jeweler under oath. The jeweler, on the recommendation of his insurance broker, retained counsel to represent the insured’s interest. Counsel for the insured became quite bored with the proceedings. The insurer’s attorney, being familiar with the intricacies of a Jewelers’ Block policy and the warranties made by an insured when purchasing a Jewelers’ Block policy, inquired in copious detail about each statement made in the proposal for Jewelers’ Block insurance. The insured responded to each question thoroughly. The Insured delayed his responses, however, because of the need for a French language interpreter that allowed him to hear each question twice, once in English and then again in French.

The insured’s counsel, well over sixty years of age, could take it no longer. He fell asleep on the sofa in the office of the attorney for the insurer. While the insured’s counsel slept, the insured admitted that he operated his business from his home. He also admitted that he did not have an alarm system in the home that he did not have a safe in the home and that he did not do business at the location specified on the proposal. Rather, it was the business location of a friend who would occasionally let him store his inventory in the friend’s safe.

Counsel asked, when faced with these truthful responses, why the insured had listed a business address for his jewelry business when, in fact, he had none. The jeweler explained that when he had honestly reported his business arrangements, he could not get insurance.

Counsel for the insurance company completed the examination under oath shortly thereafter. He awakened counsel for the insured and wished them a good day.

Counsel for Jewelers Protection & Indemnity Company then advised his client to immediately rescind the policy of insurance for willful material breaches of warranty and misrepresentation of material fact.

The testimony by the jeweler clearly established that the jeweler knew that he was not eligible for insurance with anyone, including even Lloyd’s Underwriters, because of a lack of security. The jeweler intentionally and willfully misrepresented the state of his business and security to get the insurance. There was never an an honest and honorable agreement between the insured and the insurer about the risk the insurer was asked to take. The policy was obtained, without question, by fraud.

The insurer agreed and counsel advised the insured’s attorney of the rescission. Counsel referred the attorney for the insured to the line and page number of the transcript of the examination under oath where the jeweler admitted to misrepresentation on the proposal form.

The jeweler met with his lawyer to discuss his future actions. He could not understand why he did not recover $100,000 from his insurance company like his friends had suggested.

The insured’s lawyer, although drowsy, was familiar with the law. He had no intention of becoming a party to a fraud. He explained to the jeweler what he had done, even if done without malice, was sufficient to allow an insurance company to rescind the policy for fraud.

The lawyer explained to the jeweler that his actions were not only wrong civilly, but, in California, an attempt to defraud an insurer was also a criminal offense. If the jeweler was not careful he might be arrested and spend five years in the state penitentiary. He could also be shipped out of the country as an undesirable alien. The lawyer suggested that the jeweler leave well enough alone. The insurance company seemed willing to close out their books without payment and not pursue criminal prosecution. If he upset them, he might find himself facing criminal charges. Finally, because the lawyer knew of the fraud, he made it clear to the insured that he refused to sue for the jeweler.

The jeweler’s attempt at fraud could have been successful. His mistake was not knowing enough about insurance law. His mistake was giving the lawyer for the insurance company facts that enabled the insurance company to rescind his policy. To be competent and effective as a perpetrator of insurance fraud it is necessary to know when to lie and when to tell the truth.

The jeweler did not know. He told the truth when he should have lied. He lied when he should have told the truth.

(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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma;
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

00:14:17
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
October 02, 2026
Announcement About False Claims Act Settlement Results in Damages Suit

Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled

No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.

Post 4855

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.

From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...

post photo preview
October 01, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – October 1, 2026

Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026

Post 4854

Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.

When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.

Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...

post photo preview
September 30, 2026
Suing for Services Provided, and Paid for, is Fraud

Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment

Post 4854

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW

Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals