Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
July 03, 2025
Go Directly to Jail: Do not Enjoy the Fourth of July

Attempt at Insurance Fraud Fails

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gp45YiFc and at https://lnkd.in/gEknRCgC, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Post 5112

The following is a fictionalized True Crime Story from my experience of Insurance Fraud. This story explains why insurance fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for insurers and those insured. The story is presented to help you to understand how insurance fraud in America is costing everyone who buys insurance.

Arson on Independence Day Resulted in Prison for the Arsonist

The insured had no respect for his insurance company. He expected them to pay any claim he presented. He expected no investigation. Other members of the same immigrant community had successfully committed arson fraud. It was so easy for others. He decided to burn his house down.

The insured thought he was highly intelligent. He planned his arson fire carefully. He arranged for his wife and children to spend the weekend with their cousins in Oakland. He got four one-gallon cans of gasoline from four different gas stations over a two-week period. He stored the gasoline in his garage. He told his wife and children that he would join them Sunday because he had work to do Saturday in his business. After driving the wife and children to their cousins’ home in Oakland, he returned to his home in San Francisco Friday night.

Early Saturday morning July 3, the day before Independence Day, he began the preparations for the fire. He removed all of the valuable contents of the house and stored them in a rented storage facility. He packed up all of his good clothing in a suitcase and put them in the trunk of his automobile. He checked the neighborhood and found a house for rent in his general neighborhood similar to the house he lived in. He made arrangements with the owner and signed a month-to-month lease on the house. He did not notice that the owner recorded the date and time the lease was signed.

The insured spoke on the telephone with three of his customers. He visited one to show that he had, in fact, worked in his business of selling imported bathing suits that day. He then waited for the sun to set.

After it was completely dark, the insured removed one of the gasoline cans from the garage and spread the gasoline carefully throughout his living room and dining room. He returned to the garage, deposited the empty can in its hiding place, and removed two more cans. He spread them in two bedrooms and the kitchen. He made certain, while he was spreading the gasoline that the windows and doors of the house remained open to keep enough oxygen for the fire to spread. He did not turn on any lights for fear of a spark. He had turned off the pilot light on all the gas appliances. He spread the last can of gasoline around the front entry, the den, and the two bathrooms as the Fireworks shows began with bright explosions over the San Francisco Bay.

The insured did not notice that as he poured the gasoline, small droplets splashed on his shirt.

He made a final walk through the house to satisfy himself that he had spread the gasoline everywhere. There was nothing of value remaining in the house. He stood at his rear entrance and rolled up a newspaper. He lit the newspaper with his cigarette lighter and threw it into the kitchen. The gasoline had been in the kitchen for a considerable time and the fumes ignited almost instantaneously throughout the house. The flash of flames brushed the insured and ignited his gasoline-splashed shirt. He ran from the scene ripping his shirt off his body. He suffered only minor burns to his chest and back. Half naked, he ran down the street in the dark to a nearby BART station where he caught a train to Oakland. He spent the evening with his family.

The next morning, he called the San Francisco Fire Department. He told the investigator that he had chased the arsonist out of his house all the way to Montgomery Street, only to lose him at a BART station. He explained that because he was exhausted, burned and half naked, he decided to go to his cousin’s home and spend a quiet night before calling the fire department.

The insured reported the fire to his insurer the next day. He reported that the fire gutted his house. He told them he had placed his family in a rental house. He demanded an advance payment to cover the expense of the rental house.

The insured had moved his family into the rental dwelling, knowing that his policy provided coverage for additional living expenses. It was at the new rental dwelling that he first met with the adjuster.

The insured told the adjuster:

"I came home after a late dinner to find my front door open. I believed that a burglary had occurred. I was not afraid since I had served in the Soviet army in Afghanistan before coming to the United States. I walked quietly into my dark house. I could see that my television set and stereos were missing and heard someone in one of the back bedrooms. I approached the bedroom as quietly as possible. As I was about to see the burglar, they splashed me with something that smelled like gasoline. A dark figure ran past me and I chased him down the hallway. As he was leaving out my back door, he threw a match and the kitchen burst into flames. My shirt caught fire where he had splashed me and I ripped it off. Half-naked I kept running after him down the street and into the city. I chased him for at least ten blocks but he outran me. I never got a good look at him. He was about 6’2” tall, thin and I think black. My chest was burned, I was half naked and I knew my house was in flames. There was nothing I could do. I saw a BART station nearby and I bought a token and took the train to my cousin’s home in Oakland. My cousin’s house is only two blocks from the station. I spent the night with my family there.

"When I returned to San Francisco, we found the house destroyed. I rented this house so my family would have a place to sleep."

The adjuster empathized with the insured. He made clear to the insured that the policy covered additional living expenses and advances would be made as soon as possible. The adjuster promised to start his investigation immediately. He asked for documents to support the claim for additional living expenses, including the lease agreement signed by the insured.

The San Francisco Arson Unit investigated the fire. It found the fire to be clearly an arson fire. The arson unit assumed the fire was set to cover a burglary. They believed the insured’s story about confronting and chasing the robber. There was no question that the insured was burned as a result of the fire.

The insured claimed, among other things, that he had lost in the fire over 400 bathing suits and 600 pairs of pajamas. He informed the adjuster that the bathing suits and pajamas had been part of the inventory of a business that he had closed down months before and that they were no longer for sale. He said they were used by his family and friends. He had already researched the chance that the insurer would refuse coverage for these items if they were business personal property. He made it clear to the adjuster that they were not business property.

The adjuster was suspicious of this claim. He initially accepted the insured’s word. He found it necessary, however, to complete the thorough investigation required by the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations to obtain evidence that the insured’s claims were correct and supported by substantial evidence.

His first interview, therefore, was with the landlord of the replacement dwelling. The landlord showed him the original lease which, unlike the copy in the hands of the insured, noted that he signed it at 11:30 a.m. on the Saturday before the fire. The adjuster questioned the landlord carefully in that regard since the fire was reported to have occurred at 10:12 p.m. the same night, or eleven hours after the insured signed the lease for the replacement house.

The landlord was adamant. He was a meticulous bookkeeper and always wrote down the date and time each lease is signed. He also remembered that the insured told him that he needed the house, furnished because it was a replacement for his house which burned in a fire. From that point on the truth was easy for the insurance adjuster and the insurer’s Special Investigative Unit to prove.

The insurer, as required by the California Insurance Code, reported its findings to the local fire arson investigators and provided them with copies of the lease and the statement obtained from the landlord. The fire investigators arrested the insured. He was tried and convicted of arson and insurance fraud. The court sentenced the insured to six years in state prison.

The insured was not arrested because of brilliant investigation or police work. He was arrested because he had so little respect for the insurer and the police that he covered no trails. He told a story that was almost impossible to believe after contact with the lessor. He rented a house to replace his burned out house before the fire.

From his own statements and actions, he established motive, opportunity, ability and premeditation.

He was so stupid in perpetrating this crime that even a novice adjuster who did the minimum investigation discovered the crime. The insurer celebrated the American judiciary that provided it and the insured with the justice they both deserved.

Adapted from my book Insurance Fraud Costs Everyone Available as a Kindle Book and Available at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08QG3MYCR?pf_rd_r=845HWBP1C0XK5A3GZ6BQ&pf_rd_p=9d9090dd-8b99-4ac3-b4a9-90a1db2ef53b&pd_rd_r=787f0f76-2377-4ad2-9d91-df3dbda2a0e7&pd_rd_w=R9LjE&pd_rd_wg=QXi9P&ref_=pd_gw_unk

(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

00:12:21
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
October 02, 2026
Announcement About False Claims Act Settlement Results in Damages Suit

Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled

No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.

Post 4855

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.

From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...

post photo preview
October 01, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – October 1, 2026

Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc

Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026

Post 4854

Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.

When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.

Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...

post photo preview
September 30, 2026
Suing for Services Provided, and Paid for, is Fraud

Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment

Post 4854

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW

Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals