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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
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 ...
