See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gB5EKA9t and at https://lnkd.in/gBpMe7V2, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Workers’ Compensation Insurer Sues to Collect Premiums Avoided by Fraud
It’s Fraud to Lie on Application for Insurance
Post 5121
In The Commissioners Of The State Insurance Fund v. Capcon Construction Industries Corp., Capcon Construction Supply Corp., Jab Masonry Corp., Agra Masonry Inc., Agra Industries Usa Corp, A&A Masonry Corp., Alexander Shvartsberg, Darren Caputo, Maryann Furman, 2025 NY Slip Op 32359(U), Index No. 452680/2024, Motion Seq. No. 002, Supreme Court, New York County (July 2, 2025) the court dealt with a fraudulent application for workers’ compensation insurance.
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 2015, A&A Masonry Corp. applied for workers’ compensation insurance coverage from the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF).
On January 15, 2016, Agra Masonry Inc. was incorporated with Maryann Furman as the sole shareholder and President.
On January 4, 2018, SIF canceled the A&A Policy for non-payment.
On March 6, 2018, Masonry applied for workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance from SIF.
On November 29, 2018, SIF commenced an action against A&A seeking to recover unpaid insurance premiums.
On October 3, 2019, SIF sent Masonry a notice of cancellation.
On October 9, 2019, the Masonry Policy was reinstated after Masonry paid $6,286.47.
On February 21, 2019, SIF obtained a judgment against A&A for $333,301.65.
On June 30, 2020, Agra Industries USA Corp. was incorporated.
On October 27, 2021, SIF commenced an action against Masonry seeking recovery of unpaid insurance premiums.
On January 12, 2022, SIF obtained a judgment against Masonry in the amount of $5,398,564.69.
On September 27, 2024, SIF commenced the instant action seeking $15,521,316.45 in damages.
DISCUSSION
Insurance Fraud WCL §§ 96(2) And 93
Pursuant to WCL § 96(1), any “person who knowingly … conceals any material fact or engages in any other fraudulent scheme or device for the purpose of obtaining, maintaining or renewing insurance in the state insurance fund … shall be guilty of a class E felony.” Violations of WCL § 96(1) entitle SIF to treble damages, “or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater.” WCL § 96(2).
Here, plaintiff has provided documentary evidence and pled with sufficient particularity that Shvartsberg’s role at Masonry was omitted on the Masonry Application’s question six for the purpose of obtaining insurance, as Shvartsberg was barred from obtaining policies from the SIF Fund due to the A&A judgment under WCL § 93. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action should be denied.
CONCLUSIONS
Alter Ego Liability: Plaintiff has presented evidence that Masonry’s funds were diverted to make it judgment-proof.
1. Successor Liability: Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Industries could be liable for the Masonry Judgment as the successor of Masonry.
2. DCL §273: Plaintiff has pled a voidable transfer pursuant to DCL § 273(a)(1).
3. DCL § 274: Plaintiff has alleged that Masonry’s judgment rendered it insolvent.
4. Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to DCL § 276-a: Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the prior DCL causes of action.
5. Insurance Fraud WCL §§ 96(2) and 93: Plaintiff has provided documentary evidence and pled with sufficient particularity that Shvartsberg’s role at Masonry was omitted on the Masonry Application.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud is a crime in almost every state, including the state of New York. Lying about the management of a company to hide the fact it is controlled by a person who was ineligible for insurance voids the insurance and can be criminal and, at the least, will void the insurance and holds the owners responsible for the premium charged to the various entities. Hiding behind new corporate entities to avoid premium payments is fraud in the inducement the insurer to rescind and obtain a judgment for earned premium.
(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.
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
