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conspiracy conviction did not necessarily imply intent to kill at the time of the murder, suggesting that he could have withdrawn from the conspiracy.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
Fraud Perpetrators Will Have Judgment Entered in Favor of Insurer They Defrauded
Post 5155
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGP7BYSU and at https://lnkd.in/gi4GEGeG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Allstate Effectively Proactive Against Insurance Fraud
Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company and other Allstate companies (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued seeking redress for losses incurred due to an alleged insurance fraud scheme. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Toshner, Lacey Davies, Michael Trinh, Roadside Response, LLC, and Responsible Billing, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) submitted false reimbursement claims for hazardous material cleanups that were never actually performed, were unnecessary, or did not involve an Allstate insured.
In Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Daniel Toshner, et al., No. 1:24-CV-27-RP, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division (July 9, 2025) Allstate moved for default to be entered against the defendants.
...
When Plaintiff Gives Up Court Must Grant Summary Judgment
Post 5154
It is Contumacious to Sue an Insurer if You are Not Insured
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmMWkcN and at https://lnkd.in/gJXMDYxG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Defendant American National filed a motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff is not a named or third-party beneficiary of the Policy. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff is not covered by the Policy, Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant breached the Policy or demonstrated bad faith under La. R.S. 22:1973 and 22:1892. In support of this contention, Defendant argued that the Policy only covers the “Named Insured/Mortgagee” of the property, Magee Holdings, LLC, and that the Policy does not name Plaintiff as an insured or a third-party beneficiary.
In Hannah Guillotte v. American National Property And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-00931-BAJ-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (July 16, 2025) Plaintiff, the ...
When Plaintiff Gives Up Court Must Grant Summary Judgment
Post 5154
It is Contumacious to Sue an Insurer if You are Not Insured
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmMWkcN and at https://lnkd.in/gJXMDYxG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Defendant American National filed a motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff is not a named or third-party beneficiary of the Policy. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff is not covered by the Policy, Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant breached the Policy or demonstrated bad faith under La. R.S. 22:1973 and 22:1892. In support of this contention, Defendant argued that the Policy only covers the “Named Insured/Mortgagee” of the property, Magee Holdings, LLC, and that the Policy does not name Plaintiff as an insured or a third-party beneficiary.
In Hannah Guillotte v. American National Property And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-00931-BAJ-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (July 16, 2025) Plaintiff, the ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
