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
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

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 ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

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 ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

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 ...

00:08:02
14 hours ago
Insurer Contended it was not Defrauded

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....

post photo preview
14 hours ago
Default Judgment Must be Respected by Federal Court

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...

post photo preview
June 09, 2026
Default Judgment Must be Respected by Federal Court

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...

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