GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Post 5119
Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment
In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against Defendants and the June 19, 2025 Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) of the Honorable Joseph A. Marutollo, United States Magistrate Judge which recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Defendants and award Plaintiffs a total of $456,666.65 plus pre- and postjudgment interest. The USDC adopted the recommendations of Judge Marutollo’s thorough R. & R. in full.
BACKGROUND
In October 2021, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for an insurance fraud scheme in which [Defendants] used DEO and Healthwise to unlawfully bill Plaintiffs and other New York automobile insurers, seeking payment of no-fault benefits for medically unnecessary, illusory, and otherwise non-reimbursable healthcare services. Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO’), common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, and sought money damages against them in excess of $590,000.00. On April 27, 2023, the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement, whereby Defendants agreed to “jointly and severally pay [Plaintiffs] the sum of $325,000.00 divided into a series of payments” as detailed in the Settlement Agreement.
Defendants made the initial payment followed by two installment payments, as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement. However, Defendants failed to make any subsequent installment payments, allegedly in breach of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs notified Defendants of their breach pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and demanded that the default be cured per the agreement. Defendants purportedly failed to cure the breach. These liquidated damages entail $500,000.00, less any amounts paid through the date of the Payment Default. Later provisions in the Settlement Agreement make clear that the “amounts paid” that are to be subtracted from the liquidated damages total are only the installment payments.
Defendants have failed to file any objections to the R. & R. within the 14 days prescribed by statute.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs are awarded:
1. $456,666.65 in liquidated damages, for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable;
2. Pre-judgment interest in the amount of $112.60 per day between March 7, 2024, and the day judgment is entered; and
3. Post-judgment interest in an amount to be calculated by the Clerk of Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The Court adopted the R. & R. in its entirety. The Court granted Plaintiffs default judgment and found Defendants jointly and severally liable for $456,666.65 in damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
ZALMA OPINION
People who commit fraud are not good and honorable people. GEICO, with clear evidence of fraud, sued the health care provider defendants under the RICO law. GEICO, acting honorably entered into a settlement agreement with the fraudsters who made about two of the agreed payments only to force GEICO to effectively sue again to get a judgment to enforce the settlement agreement plus interest which the defendants ignored believing they could avoid collection teaching GEICO and all insurers to never enter into a settlement with fraudsters where they would pay the settlement amount in timely installments.
(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, ...
