Lawyer Acquitted from Fraud Charges Sues Prosecutor & Insurer Who Reported Her
Post 5192
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6z698a-acquittal-is-only-one-part-of-a-malicious-prosecution-action.html and at https://youtu.be/XOVL8CG6gv4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Probable Cause for Arrest Eliminates Claim of Malicious Prosecution
In Leslie Casaubon v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Donna R. Crosby, Travis County District Attorney, No. 1:19-CV-617-RP, United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division (September 12, 2025) Texas Mutual Insurance Company (“Texas Mutual”) and Donna R. Crosby’s (“Crosby”) (together, “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the suit filed by Leslie Casaubon.
BACKGROUND
Leslie Casaubon, a workers’ compensation attorney, who brought claims against Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Donna R. Crosby, a Travis County District Attorney. Casaubon alleged that Texas Mutual and Crosby conspired to bring false charges of insurance fraud against her due to her success in obtaining favorable decisions against Texas Mutual.
Defendants secured two grand jury indictments against Casaubon for insurance fraud, for which Casaubon alleges Crosby used false or misleading evidence. Casaubon was ultimately acquitted of all charges by a jury .
LEGAL FINDINGS
The court dismissed Casaubon’s claims against Crosby for false arrest, defamation, tortious interference, and conspiracy without prejudice. Crosby’s motion was denied as to Casaubon’s malicious prosecution claim and Section 1983 claim to the extent Crosby is not protected by immunity .
Casaubon’s claims against Texas Mutual for malicious prosecution, false arrest, tortious interference, and conspiracy were dismissed without prejudice. Texas Mutual’s motion was denied as to Casaubon’s defamation claim. The court found that Casaubon sufficiently alleged her defamation claim against Texas Mutual, but not against Crosby.
The court concluded that Casaubon failed to state a claim against Crosby for defamation as she did not identify any specific false statement Crosby made. The court found that Casaubon failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution against Texas Mutual as she did not plausibly allege that Texas Mutual initiated or procured her prosecution.
DISCUSSION
Immunity – Texas Mutual’s Immunity
As a threshold matter, Texas Mutual asserts it is entitled to immunity for its actions that give rise to Plaintiff s claims. Under Texas law, insurers must report suspected fraudulent activity and are “not liable in a civil action . . . and a civil action may not be brought . . ., for furnishing information relating to a suspected, anticipated, or completed fraud insurance act.” Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 701.052(a) (West). Further, Texas has specifically granted Texas Mutual immunity for “identifying or referring a person for investigation of or prosecution for a possible administrative violation or criminal offense.”
CROSBY’S IMMUNITY
Despite relying on sovereign immunity, Crosby opens her motion by observing that Plaintiff sues Crosby, presumably in her individual capacity only. As Crosby interprets Plaintiff’s state-law torts to be against Crosby in her individual capacity, sovereign immunity does not apply.
Crosby argued Plaintiff must satisfy Rule 9’s requirement of pleading with particularity Plaintiff alleges Crosby intentionally presented false evidence to the grand juries. An allegation that misleading and fabricated evidence was presented to the grand jury is a serious charge, and if properly pleaded, could state an actionable wrong if the Defendants knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth presented false evidence to the grand jury. Crosby argues Plaintiff fails to plead the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud because Plaintiff does not specify any particular statements made or proffered by Crosby or explain why they were fraudulent.” The Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to identify the allegedly false evidence Crosby presented to the grand juries or explain why it was indeed false. Plaintiff failed to plead with particularity the allegedly false evidence before the grand juries.
Against Texas Mutual, the Court found Plaintiff fails to state a claim for malicious prosecution, false arrest, tortious interference, and conspiracy, but succeeds in stating her claim for defamation. Against Crosby, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for false arrest, tortious interference, conspiracy, and defamation.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Crosby and the grand juries’ roles in initiating and procuring Plaintiff’s prosecution was left to both Crosby and two grand juries after Texas Mutual reported Plaintiff. Because a person is not liable for merely aiding or cooperating in causing a criminal prosecution the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Texas Mutual for malicious prosecution.
FALSE ARREST
To sufficiently state a claim for false arrest, Plaintiff must show her arrest was made without authority of law. Because Plaintiff was arrested following her indictment, there was probable cause for her arrest, meaning her arrest was not made without authority of law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims for false arrest against Texas Mutual and Crosby were dismissed.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants’ actions, clients of her workers’ compensation practice terminated their contracts with her. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s tortious interference claims against Texas Mutual and Crosby.
DEFAMATION
Finally, the Court found Plaintiff sufficiently alleged her defamation claim against Texas Mutual, but not against Crosby. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff stated a claim against Texas Mutual for defamation.
Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Crosby for defamation. Plaintiff vaguely alleged Crosby’s entire prosecution of her was defamatory, but such allegations are too broad and conclusory to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
ZALMA OPINION
In the United States reporting a person to prosecutors for a crime is privileged unless made with malice. In this case the charges went to a grand jury that issued an indictment that established probable cause for arrest. That she was acquitted established only that the state failed to prove her claims of malicious prosecution and other torts beyond a reasonable doubt. She may attempt to prove that Texas Mutual defamed her. Note, truth is a perfect defense to a defamation action and the fact that a grand jury issued an indictment indicates that the reports Texas Mutual were truthful.
(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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
