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
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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
