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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
