Insurance Fraud is a Violent Crime
Post 5079
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g4fAqCZ9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gJ-wNkW4 and at https://lnkd.in/gjH7AwNq, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
No Resentence: Murderer for Hire & Insurance Fraud Stays in Prison
James Theron Elliott was convicted by a jury for multiple crimes, including first-degree murder, stemming from a conspiracy to kill jewelry dealer Ben Rudman. Elliott had hired Charles Thomas to carry out the murder in exchange for valuable consideration, which the jury confirmed through the special circumstance finding of “murder for hire.”
In The People v. James Theron Elliott, H051762, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (May 14, 2025) James Theron Elliott was convicted for conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, grand theft, and insurance fraud, as well as first-degree murder.
TRIAL DETAILS
Elliott was charged with three counts, including conspiracy to commit murder, and the jury was instructed on various theories of murder liability, including conspiracy and felony murder. The jury ultimately found Elliott guilty on all counts, and his conviction was based on the direct aiding and abetting theory, which remained valid under the law even after recent legislative changes.
RESENTENCING PETITION
In 2023, after many years in prison, Elliott filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, claiming that he met the statutory conditions for relief. He argued that his conspiracy conviction did not necessarily imply intent to kill at the time of the murder, suggesting that he could have withdrawn from the conspiracy. The prosecution opposed the petition.
COURT’S RULING
The trial court denied Elliott’s petition, stating that conspiracy to commit murder is not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court noted that the jury’s true finding of the murder for hire special circumstance further confirmed Elliott’s intent to murder.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Senate Bill No. 1437 amended the felony murder rule and clarified the requirements for murder liability. The changes did not affect the direct aiding and abetting theory of murder, which requires the defendant to possess malice aforethought.
Elliott’s conviction was not impacted by the legislative changes, and he remained ineligible for resentencing.
CONCLUSION
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Elliott’s resentencing petition, concluding that he was not entitled to relief under the amended Penal Code due to the nature of his convictions.
Defendant was required to show, among other things, that he was “convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine” and that he could no longer be convicted “because of” the 2019 statutory changes. Defendant could not satisfy those requirements because he was convicted of first degree murder under a theory of direct aiding and abetting express malice murder that is unaffected by the 2019 changes.
By convicting defendant of conspiracy to commit murder, the jury necessarily found he harbored the intent to kill when he conspired to commit murder.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RESENTENCING UNDER SECTION 1172.6
Because conspiracy to commit murder is based on the conspirator’s own mental state, it requires that a defendant either act with malice or intend to kill. And because section 1172.6 does not offer relief for a person convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, any purported instructional error regarding that conviction which could have been asserted on direct appeal is irrelevant. The Legislature when it enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 did nothing to change the applicable law so as to resurrect an argument he had already abandoned.
ZALMA OPINION
Many prosecutors and judges refuse to accept the fact that insurance fraud is a violent crime. Mr. Elliot, as part of his insurance fraud attempt hired a person to murder a jeweler and was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder which required the jury to find that he directly aided and abetted the murder with express malice to murder he was not entitled to resentencing. It is good to see the California Court of Appeals accepting the fact that insurance fraud is a violent crime coupled with an intent to commit murder for hire.
(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
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds
Post 5184
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview
This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).
Key Points
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:
The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...
APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER
Post 5180
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...
