Killer Abuses Court System With Multiple Attempts to Get Out of Prison
Post 5178
Posted on August 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6y6ule-convicted-of-arson-murder-must-stay-in-jail.html and at https://youtu.be/nnUpStLmDoM
Attempted Arson for Profit that Resulted in Death Requires Life in Prison
In Suresh Kumar v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-4874 (MKV), United States District Court, S.D. New York (August 26, 2025) Kumar, convicted of arson for profit where four people died sought to be let out of jail by filing a Habeas Corpus motion.
BACKGROUND
Suresh Kumar was convicted by a jury of multiple felonies for his role in burning down a hotel he owned for insurance money. Four people died, and fifteen others were injured. Kumar was only sentenced to life in prison.
Kumar pursued multiple previous challenges to his conviction and sentence, which have withstood both direct appeal and collateral attacks. Kumar now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus arguing actual innocence and citing Supreme Court cases.
THE CRIME
Suresh Kumar owned and operated a Howard Johnson hotel in Bowling Green, Kentucky together with his wife and her brother, Dave Sharma. In 1996, a fire destroyed the hotel, killed four people, and injured fifteen others. Kumar later filed an insurance claim seeking more than $4.5 million. A federal grand jury indicted Kumar and Joe Logan, a hotel janitor and the government also sought to arrest Sharma, who fled the country.
THE TRIAL
The government, at trial, argued successfully that Kumar and Sharma, together, had conspired to offer Logan money to start a fire, which Logan did. The jury convicted Kumar of all three counts with which he was charged:
1. conspiracy to commit arson;
2. arson resulting in death and aiding and abetting the same and mail fraud.
Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentencing court found that “Mr. Kumar acted knowingly or with awareness that his actions were practically certain to create a substantial risk of death or serious injury.”
Kumar filed a direct appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Sixth Circuit considered and rejected Kumar’s arguments. The Supreme Court of the United States denied Kumar’s petition for certiorari. Thereafter, Kumar filed a petition for habeas corpus arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, among other things. The district court denied the petition, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Kumar v. United States, 163 Fed.Appx. 361 (6th Cir. 2006).
Kumar is now imprisoned at FCI Otisville, which is located in the Southern District of New York. He argued that he is innocent, at least with respect to his conviction for arson resulting in death, aiding, and abetting the same because he lacked the required mental state for intent.
Kumar contends he did not intend or know that the hotel fire would cause death.
DISCUSSION
The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Kumar’s § 2241 petition. Kumar’s § 2241 petition is precisely what the Supreme Court rejected as an “end-run” around the strict limitations on successive 2255 petitions imposed by AEDPA.
Kumar argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to determine if Kumar was willing to aid and abet. There is no authority for Kumar’s proposed instruction.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about a defendant arguing that a sentencing court should have applied a downward departure or that a trial court should have instructed the jury differently.
In essence Kumar is asking that after serving 27 years in prison and at the age of approximately 70, Kumar has served enough time in prison.
Of course, the Court has no authority to commute his sentence.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was DENIED and the case was DISMISSED.
ZALMA OPINION
Arson for Profit is the most evil and violent form of insurance fraud. In this case, an attempt to gain $4.5 million in insurance proceeds, Kumar conspired with others to cause his hotel to burn killing four guests and injuring fifteen. He was convicted and sentenced, properly, to life in prison. Since his sentence he has filed multiple appeals and petitions all of which failed. It is understandable that he wants out of prison but his crime required life in prison and he will die in prison complaining every day to any court willing to listen to him.
(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.
Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff’s Bad Faith Case and Insurer Granted Attorneys Fees
Post 5177
Posted on August 28, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Contumacious Conduct to Texas Court Causes Insured Plaintiff and her Lawyer to Have a Judgment in Favor of the Insurer and Both Charged to Pay More Than $137,000
In Carmen Aleman, Eric B. Dick, And The Dick Law Firm, PLLC v. Standard Casualty Company, No. 01-23-00572-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025)
Background
Carmen Aleman, along with Eric B. Dick and the Dick Law Firm, PLLC, filed a lawsuit against Standard Casualty Company for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA) and the Texas Insurance Code.
According to Aleman, at some point, “someone . . . stop[ped] by to look at [the property] and there was some damage,” ...
“Accident” Includes Continuous or Repeated Exposure to Conditions
Post 5176
“Occurrence” is an Accident & Includes Repeated Damage
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkvBuWGK and at https://lnkd.in/g9zsY8hi and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In The Cobblestone Lofts Condominium v. Great American Insurance Company, Admiral Indemnity Company et al., Appeal No. 4265, 2025 NY Slip Op 04749, Index No. 653189/21, Case No. 2024-01860, Supreme Court of New York, First Department (August 21, 2025) the court resolved the issues.
FACTS
The Supreme Court of New York, First Department (trial court) dealt with a declaratory judgment action concerning an insurance coverage dispute. The plaintiff, a condominium association, was being sued for property damage and bodily injury caused by unintended water and moisture infiltration, resulting in toxic contamination of a condominium unit. The infiltration was allegedly caused by the plaintiff’s breaches of its contractual obligations under its bylaws...
Court Limits Lengthy Decision to Decide Case Can Go to Trial
USDC Tries to Keep it Simple
Post 5175
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gbuRkvaj and at https://lnkd.in/gceNKPpG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Todd F. Stevenson, an individual et al v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company; et al, No. CV 24-109-M-DLC, United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division (August 13, 2025) Plaintiffs alleged various claims including ordinary and professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, statutory violations, constructive fraud, actual fraud, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, rescission and restitution.
Claims and Legal Theories:
Plaintiffs have alleged various claims including ordinary and professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, statutory violations, constructive fraud, actual fraud, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, rescission and ...
Is Injury in the Course of Self-Defense an Occurrence?
Post 5171
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gAJnVny9, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gUTs-w6E and at https://lnkd.in/gQPspzmB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
When There is no Accident the Intentional Acts Exclusion is Irrelevant
The case involves a tragic incident where Kimberly Mollicone was killed during a gunfight between her husband, Matthew Mollicone, and Daniele Giannone. The central issue is whether Giannone’s actions, taken in self-defense, are covered under his State Farm homeowner’s insurance policy.
In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Daniele Giuseppe Giannone; Heidi C. Aull, personal representative for the estate of Kimberly Ann Mollicone, Nos. 24-1264, 24-1265, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (August 5, 2025) resolved the dispute.
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE
Although rare in insurance contracts the policy in question provides coverage for the insured’s liability to third parties who are injured ...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
