Malicious Prosecution Tort Supported by Fabricated Evidence
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEkQqiVZ and at https://lnkd.in/gykZmEUf, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Sarah Steinmetz filed a five-count complaint against Lindsey Pickholtz and Steven Gordon, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution because the defendants reported her to the Division of Insurance with making false statements and being arrested by the State in connection with those charges. The complaint detailed events spanning two-and-a-half years, beginning with the sale of Steinmetz’s condominium to Pickholtz and Gordon. The relationship between the parties deteriorated after a prank call incident, leading to fabricated evidence and legal actions against Steinmetz.
In Sarah Steinmetz v. Lindsey Pickholtz, et al., No. 3D24-0417, Florida Court of Appeals, Third District (June 11, 2025) most of the issues raised on appeal were resolved.
Background:
The trial court dismissed Steinmetz’s complaint with prejudice. Steinmetz appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its decision and in denying her leave to amend.
Appeal Court Decision:
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but reversed the “with prejudice” designation and the dismissal of the remaining counts. The court concluded that Steinmetz’s allegations were sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy .
Key Points:
1 Malicious Prosecution: Steinmetz’s allegations of fabricated evidence and lack of probable cause were deemed sufficient to support a claim for malicious prosecution .
2 Civil Conspiracy: The court found that Steinmetz’s detailed allegations of an agreement between Pickholtz and Gordon to fabricate evidence and make false reports were adequate to support a civil conspiracy claim .
3 Abuse of Process: The court affirmed the dismissal of this claim but noted that Steinmetz should have been granted leave to amend .
4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The court affirmed the dismissal of this claim, finding the allegations insufficient to meet the required standard .
ANALYSIS
A bona fide termination is a critical element to proof of the tort of malicious prosecution since a very early date and has been described as a pre-condition to the later action. As Justice Scalia explained in the seminal case of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) one element that must be alleged and proved in a malicious prosecution action is termination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused.
Steinmetz failed to sufficiently allege that the voluntary dismissal of the civil injunction and the nolle prosequi of the criminal aggravated stalking case constituted “bona fide terminations” of the earlier proceedings, as is required to support malicious prosecution claims. Generally, whether a voluntary dismissal or nolle prosequi constitutes a bona fide termination sufficient to support a claim for malicious prosecution presents a factually dependent question, and therefore the issue is best suited for the jury as the factfinder.
Steinmetz alleged that Pickholtz, with Gordon’s assistance, instigated the former proceedings with improper purpose and without probable cause. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires the following elements:
1. intentional or reckless conduct;
2. outrageousness beyond all bounds of decency;
3. causation; and
4. severe distress.
The second prong is the gravamen of the tort.
CONCLUSION
While the anxiety and stress of being charged by the Division of Insurance Fraud with making false statements and being arrested by the State in connection with those charges is understandable, the appellees’ behavior in investigating and then allegedly falsely reporting to the Division of Insurance that fraud was committed. However, the Court of Appeals concluded the action is not the type of conduct that is so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond the bounds of decency and be deemed utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
ZALMA OPINION
If an insurer or a citizen learns of an attempt at insurance fraud they are obligated to report that suspicion to the Florida Division of Insurance Fraud. However, it is a tort to make such a report maliciously or in bad faith. Steinmetz claimed that she was falsely accused of fraud, was arrested by the Division of Insurance Fraud who dismissed the charge and refused to prosecute. She then claimed, but was unable to establish malicious prosecution and the Court of Appeal concluded that the accusations were not outrageousness beyond all bounds of decency.
(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.
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...
