see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gsxE-nPK and at https://lnkd.in/gGbQ9taM, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Fraudulent Joinder of Defendant to Avoid Federal Court Fails
Post 5113
It Never Pays to Sue a Party Who Did Nothing Wrong
The Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court, asserting claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against State Farm. They also brought claims for negligent procurement of insurance and constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation against Tyler McCall and the Tyler McCall Insurance Agency, Inc .
In Justin Gamble and Brittany Gamble v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, et al., No. CIV-25-396-R, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (July 2, 2025) State Farm removed the case to Federal Court and alleged that the McCall Agency was fraudulently joined to avoid removal.
KEY ISSUES
Fraudulent Joinder: State Farm removed the case, arguing that Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The standard for establishing fraudulent joinder is stringent, requiring either actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts or the inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.
Negligent Procurement of Insurance: Plaintiffs allege that the McCall Agency negligently failed to procure the insurance coverage they requested. However, the court found that the plaintiffs received the policy they requested and had sufficient coverage to replace their roof. Therefore, they cannot show that insurance was not procured as promised.
Constructive Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation: Plaintiffs also allege that the McCall Agency engaged in constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation by failing to disclose information about State Farm’s bad faith claims handling tactics and the Hail Focus initiative. However, the court found no viable claim against the McCall Agency for these allegations .
State Farm removed the case, contending that Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined and their non-diverse citizenship may therefore be disregarded for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
The standard for establishing that a defendant has been fraudulently joined is a difficult one where the removing party must demonstrate either:
1. actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or
2. inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.
The standard to establish fraudulent joinder is more exacting than that for dismissing a claim and requires all factual disputes and all ambiguities in the controlling law to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. However, where a defendant’s non-liability is established as both a matter of fact and law, the defendant’s joinder is fraudulent and remand is appropriately refused.
The McCall Agency is the State Farm insurance agency that sold Plaintiffs the insurance policy. Oklahoma law recognizes that an insurance agent has a duty to act in good faith and use reasonable care, skill and diligence in the procurement of insurance.
An insurance agent can therefore be liable to the insured in negligence if, by the agent’s fault, insurance is not procured as promised and the insured suffers a loss. However, the scope of the agent’s duty to use reasonable care, skill, or diligence in the procurement of insurance is limited to needs disclosed by the insured. Agents do not have a duty to advise an insured with respect to his insurance needs and a general request for adequate protection and the like does not change this duty.
It is clear from Plaintiffs’ allegations and the record that Plaintiffs received the policy they requested and had sufficient coverage to replace their roof. No viable claim against McCall is available because Plaintiff’s claim against State Farm depends upon what damage her roof sustained, not the terms of her policy. As a result, Plaintiffs have no possibly viable claim against the McCall Agency for negligent procurement of insurance.
Any implied representations by the agent about the property’s condition or its eligibility for a replacement cost value policy were either true or not the cause of Plaintiffs’ losses.
Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were fraudulently joined defendants, and their citizenship was therefore disregarded for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction.
The claims against Mr. McCall and the McCall Agency were dismissed without prejudice and the case will remain in the USDC.
ZALMA OPINION
Some litigants do not like litigating in federal court, especially when they are suing insurers and will sue the agent to create a failure of jurisdiction in federal court. The Plaintiffs tried and failed because the agent did exactly what he was required to do. The case will be tried against State Farm in federal court.
(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
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...
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 ...
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 ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
