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.
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
