INSURANCE FRAUDSTER MUST PAY INSURER FULL RESTITUTION
Post 5049
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gmW8qimV and at https://lnkd.in/g_AYN2N7, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Plaintiff Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) issued a homeowners insurance policy to Defendant Jack Strunk that was active when his home was damaged by fire. Strunk made two insurance claims: one for fire damage and another for alleged theft of certain personal property after the fire. Strunk sued Liberty for the payment of the alleged damages. That case was removed to federal court and ultimately settled by Liberty paying $100,000 to Strunk.
In Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Jack A. Strunk, Civil Action No. 5:24-128-DCR, United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky (April 4, 2025) Liberty sued Strunk for return of the amounts paid in settlement after he pleaded guilty to defrauding Liberty.
THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION
Strunk was convicted of felony insurance fraud. This is not contested as Strunk admited to this in his Answer. Strunk pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, a criminal fraudulent insurance act based on his conduct in falsely reporting the property as stolen when he filed an insurance claim with Liberty. Liberty sued to recover the $100,000 settlement because Strunk breached the homeowner policy when he fraudulently alleged certain items were stolen.
Strunk was represented by counsel at the onset of this case who later withdrew because of the defendant’s indigency. No counsel entered an appearance. While Strunk participated in submitting a proposed discovery order, he has not been involved since.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Liberty filed a Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, contending that Strunk breached the insurance contract entitling them to the return of the $100,000 only to be offset by restitution Strunk paid pursuant to his plea. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins who directed Strunk to respond to the motion within a specified time only to see no response from Strunk.
Magistrate Judge Atkins then issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended that the Judge grant the plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The R&R also recommended that the US District Judge enter judgment in Liberty’s favor for the full $100,000.
ANALYSIS
The District Court Judge concluded that Congress did not intend to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings. While there were no objections filed, the District Judge decided to limit the relief to what the plaintiff requested: that the Court grant the Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings holding that Strunk breached the Policy and caused damages to Liberty in an amount to be determined through subsequent proceedings.
ORDER
Accordingly, it was ORDERED that Plaintiff Liberty Insurance Corporation’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED. The case remained referred to Magistrate Judge Atkins for limited discovery on the breach of contract damages to determine the amount, if any, Defendant Strunk has paid in criminal restitution to Plaintiff Liberty Insurance Corporation as an offset against the judgment.
ZALMA OPINION
After an insurance fraud perpetrator is convicted the insurer is entitled to receive as a condition of the judgment, restitution for what the crime cost the insurer. Since Liberty defended Strunk’s lawsuit and paid him $100,000 without knowledge of the crime, it sued for full restitution. It is entitled to at least $100,000 plus interest less any restitution Strunk paid into the court in an attempt to comply with the restitution order. No insurer should let a convicted fraudster keep the funds he stole. Liberty did not and will have both the order of restitution and the judgment to get its money back by executing its judgment on any property Strunk still owns, for example the house Liberty insured.
(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
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
