False Report of Theft of Vehicle Established
Post 5090
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-u7tmVR and at https://lnkd.in/gQWkDv23 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Creating a Fake Theft of Vehicle and Insurance Claim is a Crime
Shonda Brown faced multiple charges, including felonies related to false reporting and insurance fraud changed to class A misdemeanors such as tampering with public records and making false statements.
The case arose from allegations that Brown paid an informant to move her inoperable vehicle and then reported it stolen to the NYPD, despite evidence suggesting the vehicle had been tampered with and was found in a damaged state.
In The People of the State of New York v. Shonda Brown, Index No. CR-024423-24KN, 2025 NY Slip Op 25122, Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (May 23, 2025) the Criminal Court concluded that the charges were appropriately filed and rejected Brown’s motion to dismiss.
Sufficiency of the Accusatory Instrument
The court assessed whether the accusatory instrument met the legal standards for facial sufficiency. The court concluded that the instrument adequately designated the offenses and provided reasonable cause to believe that Brown committed the alleged crimes. The court noted that the statement of Fire Marshal Joseph Hayes (“FM Hayes”) of the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) and the supporting deposition from the informant, Mohammed, provided sufficient factual basis to support the charges. Furthermore, FM Hayes’ averment that he “observed All-State Insurance records to show defendant filed an insurance claim for said vehicle,” taken together with his averment that he was informed that defendant paid Mohammed to move defendant’s vehicle, satisfied the reasonable cause standard to the extent that defendant was informed of the accusations, i.e., making sworn false statements in violation of PL § § 210.35, 210.45, and provided her with enough information as to the defenses available.
The court highlighted that non-hearsay allegations were present in the instrument, which included the details of the vehicle’s condition and the actions taken by Brown and although some statements were deemed hearsay, they were remedied by the supporting deposition that confirmed their truthfulness.
Validity of the People’s Certificate of Compliance
The court found that the prosecution exercised due diligence in disclosing discoverable materials. The absence of certain items, such as recordings or police reports, did not invalidate the certificate as the prosecution demonstrated that these items did not exist.
Discovery Obligations
The prosecution was required to disclose all relevant materials, including those that could potentially exculpate Brown.
Speedy Trial Considerations
The court analyzed the timelines related to the speedy trial rights of the defendant. The original felony complaint was filed on June 13, 2024, and the charges were reduced on October 23, 2024. The court calculated the elapsed time and determined that the prosecution had complied with the speedy trial requirements, as they acted within the six-month period mandated by law.
Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges, affirming that the legal proceedings adhered to the necessary protocols and standards and defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
People who commit insurance fraud, like Ms. Brown, refuse to accept the fact that they were caught and charged with crimes relating to their attempt at fraud. Ms. Brown attempted to avoid the charges by a motion to dismiss with charges of wrongdoing by the police and the prosecution without a factual basis. She will go to trial on the charges and there is a good chance she will be convicted or plead guilty before trial.
(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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
