Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
September 24, 2025
Small Frauds Cost Insurers the Most

Don’t Sweat the Small Fraud
Post 5194

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkEJm3qy and at https://lnkd.in/gkiZASeT, and at https://zalma.com/blog, plus more than 5150 posts.

"Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE presents blog posts and videos so you can learn how insurance fraud is perpetrated and what is necessary to deter or defeat insurance fraud. This Video Blog of a True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud with the names and places changed to protect the guilty is based upon investigations conducted by me and fictionalized to create a learning environment for claims personnel, SIU investigators, insurers, police, and lawyers better understand insurance fraud and weapons that can be used to deter or defeat a fraudulent insurance claim."

The Accidental Creation of an Insurance Fraudster

The claimant wore plastic framed eye-glasses with thick lenses. He literally fell into a life of insurance crime and fraud.

One day the claimant was walking past a fine restaurant when he fell and broke the frames of his glasses. The manager saw him fall. She rushed out, helped him to his feet and checked his physical condition. He thought he was uninjured but the frames of his glasses had broken at the bridge.

The restaurant manager, fearful of a lawsuit, offered him lunch on the house and asked the cost of the frames. When he told her $80.00, she went to the register and brought him four crisp twenty-dollar bills. The claimant could not believe his good fortune. It was so easy. From that day on he made a good living from many small frauds.

His method was simple and unique at the time. No particular individual was severely harmed by his fraud. Wherever he went he carried with him the broken pair of eye glasses. He would walk into a restaurant in an area far from where he lived. He would hold his broken glasses in one hand and walk up to the cashier squinting. He would say:

“I tripped over your carpet, fell and broke the frames on my glasses. They cost $80.”

One of two things would always happen:

1 A manager of the restaurant would take four twenty dollar bills out of the cash register, apologize, buy the claimant lunch and send him on his way; or
2 the manager took a formal report for the restaurant’s insurance company.

In either event the claimant would profess he only wanted replacement of his glasses. He told the Manager or the adjuster for the restaurant’s insurance company that he would forget any possible personal injuries he may have suffered.

If they did not pay him on the spot, an insurance adjuster would issue a check instantly. No adjuster would take a chance on a lawsuit if he could settle a claim for $80.00.

The claimant would stop and collect his $80 in five to seven restaurants a day. He would seldom buy a meal. He would also, on a small portable typewriter, write letters to various restaurants and other businesses whose names and addresses he got from the telephone book. He would write simply: “I tripped and fell in your lobby and broke the frames of my glasses. Enclosed is the bill from my doctor for replacement. Please send me your check for $80.”

He would send out twenty such letters a day to businesses at random. At least five would merely send him an $80 check in the return mail.

With his earnings, all of which were tax free, the claimant bought a three-bedroom condominium on the west side of town. He furnished the condo with fine furniture, original art and a few antiques. Soon he was driving a new Tesla all electric roadster.

He eventually bought a word processor. He used it with a mailing list he purchased from a credit card company of all its vendors to send out mass mailings of his $80 demand. On good days he would receive ten to twenty $80 checks from varying businesses.

He quickly used up the businesses in his community. He sold the condominium and bought a motor home. He moved from city to city staying in no location more than sixty days.

He would still be doing this multiple fraud if he had learned to spell. His letters always misspelled the word “frames” as “frams.” This misspelling lent a certain amount of credibility to the claims he was presenting. However, one bright adjuster about to write his fifth check for broken glasses “frams” remembered that the four other claimants that he had paid (with different names) misspelled “frames” the same way. He refused to pay.

He reported the scheme to the local police and the insurance fraud bureau. Neither showed any interest in such a petty theft. They refused to prosecute. They even refused to investigate to determine whether they should prosecute. The reported fraud was just too small to expend the effort and funds to investigate.

The claimant left that city quickly. Unfortunately, the claimant’s Achilles heel cut into his profits. The adjuster spread the word to all the adjusters he knew, put out an alert on LinkedIn and several insurance and investigation discussion groups to watch out for the broken “frams.” The claimant’s cash flow from insurers dwindled.

Somewhere in North Dakota or Kansas the claimant is still making a healthy living by reporting to honest business people that he has broken the frames on his glasses.

Eighty dollars seems a small amount to avoid a lawsuit. The claimant, with multiple eighty-dollar claims, would average, in the two months he would limit himself to in any community, $2500 a day. His collections were either in person or by mail. He almost never bought a meal.

He was small stuff and no one wanted to bother with. Yet he stole, in his own small way, more than $600,000 a year. He took long vacations from his job. He stayed in the best resorts. He lived the good life because an $80 fraud is just too small to bother businesses, insurers, police and fraud investigators.

(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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.

00:08:29
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

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 ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

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 ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

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 ...

00:08:02
12 hours ago
Insurer Contended it was not Defrauded

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....

post photo preview
12 hours ago
Default Judgment Must be Respected by Federal Court

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...

post photo preview
June 09, 2026
Default Judgment Must be Respected by Federal Court

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...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals