Murder for Insurance Proceeds Results in Life in Prison
It Is Not Nice to Break Your Wife's Neck to Collect her Life Insurance So You Get Life In Prison
Post 5067
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gm2t_AX4 and at https://lnkd.in/grPYwukK, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Insurance fraudster and murder Kenneth Russell Moyer appealed the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Moyer took issue with the jury's conclusion he was a beneficiary on his wife's insurance policy, his counsel's failure to properly litigate this issue at his first trial and argued his appellate counsel's conclusion he is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
In The People v. Kenneth Russell Moyer, C100909, California Court of Appeals, Third District, El Dorado (April 23, 2025) the Court of Appeals kept the killer in jail.
BACKGROUND
The information charged Moyer with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, insurance fraud and attempted escape while felony charges are pending. The information further alleged the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain.
The facts of the underlying the offense are set forth in the appellate opinion from Moyer's prior appeal. (People v. Moyer (Aug. 30, 1996, C019477) [nonpub. opn.] (Moyer).)
Succinctly stated, in this case, a wealthy widow marries an unfaithful man who takes financial advantage of her, leading to her murder.
Shortly after the start of their marriage, Moyer shared his plans with Ross, a former employee who was in prison. The two discussed whether Ross would kill the victim for Moyer when he was released from prison in 1992 by breaking her neck. The plan failed when Ross was denied release.
In September 1992, Moyer and the victim each took out $180,000 life insurance policies. Each policy required a physical examination. Moyer was the beneficiary of the victim's policy. The victim completed her physical examination, and her life insurance policy became effective. That evening a passing motorist reported seeing a car plunge down an embankment. The motorist found the victim dead in the driver's seat, covered in dried blood. Mitch McLees was semiconscious in the passenger seat but suddenly became alert when paramedics attempted to intubate him. He had no internal injuries and only a small cut.
A pathologist determined that the victim did not die in the car accident but rather died from a broken neck.
McLees testified that he was working in the couple's garage the night of the murder. When Moyer called out to him, he came into the house and found Moyer standing over the victim's body. Moyer told McLees that he had already killed the victim and instructed him to drive somewhere and stage an accident. When McLees refused, Moyer threatened to tell the police that McLees had killed the victim and also threatened his family and fiancée.
After the murder, Moyer hired workers to scrape grout from the tiles in his home's entryway, explaining that he had spilled cherry cough syrup on them. However, when investigators analyzed the grout, they found the victim's blood.
THE TRIAL
McLees was convicted of first degree murder of the victim for financial gain and insurance fraud. The jury convicted Moyer of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and insurance fraud. The jury also found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain.
The trial court sentenced Moyer to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, 25 years to life for the conspiracy, and three years in state prison for the attempted escape.
Moyer moved for resentencing and the trial court denied the petition, finding the record of conviction ... was found by the jury to have acted with the intent to kill; therefore, as to both counts, the Petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law and the Court does not find a prima facie showing has been made."
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill No. 1437 added what is now section 1172.6, which allows those convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek relief.
As to Moyer's murder conviction, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of murder: that a human being was killed, the killing was unlawful, and the killing was done with malice aforethought. More importantly, the trial court instructed the jury on the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed for financial gain. The jury found Moyer guilty of first degree murder and found this special circumstance allegation the murder was committed for financial gain true.
As to the factual finding Moyer had the requisite intent to kill. Here the trial court did not err in denying Moyer's petition because he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law based on the jury's special circumstance finding he was the actual killer or he was a direct aider and abettor who had the intent to kill the victim.
ZALMA OPINION
Many in the police, judiciary, and prosecutors believe that insurance fraud is not a violent crime. When a man breaks his wife's neck so he can collect the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the act is as violent a crime as can be conceived. The unmitigated gall of the murderer to first unsuccessfully appeal his conviction and then move to reduce his sentence failed because the evidence was overwhelming and the California Court of Appeal recognized that murder for profit is a serious crime keeping Moyer in Prison for the rest of his life.
(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 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
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
