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
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...
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 ...
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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
