Fraudsters Must Pay RICO Damages
Post 5192
Allstate Fights Fraudsters in Court and Wins
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gNU_Xim7, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDZThRCJ and at https://lnkd.in/gd4xv-wC, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Fraudsters Must Pay RICO Damages
Post 5192
In Allstate Insurance Company, et al v. Vladimir Geykhman, et al., No. 24 CV 4580 (PKC) (CLP), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 7, 2025) Allstate Insurance Company, et al (together “plaintiffs” or “Allstate”), sued seeking damages that they suffered from an insurance fraud scheme where defendants billed Allstate for medically unnecessary physical therapy services and collected insurance payments on fraudulent No-Fault claims.
Allstate accused several people of participating in an insurance fraud scheme. The scheme involved billing Allstate for medically unnecessary physical therapy services into three groups:
1. Licensed physical therapists.
2. Non-licensed laypersons who controlled the No-Fault clinics and the medical providers they staffed.
3. The operation of the clinics by unlicensed individuals, and the involvement in unlawful referral and kickback arrangements.
BACKGROUND
Defaulting Defendants carried out a scheme to exploit New York’s No-Fault insurance laws, which provide for insurance coverage to claimants involved in automobile accidents. As the victim of the scheme, Allstate alleged that it was fraudulently billed for coverage for physical therapy services.
These clinics operated in several locations in the New York area and were implicated in one of the largest no-fault insurance frauds in New York history.
The second category of defendants consists of licensed physical therapists that nominally owned the PC Defendants.
DISCUSSION
Default Judgment
The burden is on the plaintiff to establish his entitlement to recovery. The Court found that all three factors permit entry of default judgment against the Defaulting Defendants and respectfully recommends that they be deemed to have defaulted.
Substantive RICO Claims
Allstate alleges eight substantive RICO Claims that correspond with the fraudulently incorporated professional corporations that make up the PC Defendants. These RICO claims are alleged against all Defaulting Defendants, grouped by the different PC Defendant enterprises, and Geykhman, for his role as a Management Defendant in control of the PC Defendants.
To sustain a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a plaintiff must show ‘(1) that the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a ‘pattern’ (4) of ‘racketeering activity’ (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains and interest in, or participates in (6) an ‘enterprise’ (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The RICO Enterprises
There are eight RICO enterprises at issue in Allstate’s motions for default judgment, each corresponding with a PC Defendant currently in default. Allstate has successfully pleaded that the PC Defendant enterprises are “enterprises” and that the other Defaulting Defendants and Geykhman are “persons” under RICO.
State Common Law Fraud
Allstate moved for default judgment on the state common law fraud claims it brings against each defendant in this action. Allstate has established that Defaulting Defendants and Geykhman have made material misrepresentations or omissions of fact, that they made these material misrepresentations with knowledge of their falsity and with intent to defraud, and that Allstate’s reasonable reliance on these representations led it to suffer damages.
Default Judgment should be granted as to Allstate’s RICO claims.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud costs the insurance buying public over $308 billion every year. Insurers, like Allstate, are now fighting back by taking the profit out of the crime. In this case, Allstate will get money judgments against the doctors, chiropractors, health care providers for the money obtained by fraud and multiple extra damages under the RICO laws. They will probably have a difficult time collecting but they must do as much as they can to collect from the fraudsters.
(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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
