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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
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 is one of a collection designed to help 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.
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 is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
