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.
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 ...
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
Posted on July 6, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Allows itself to be Abused by Convicted Murderer and Insurance Fraudster
A Prisoner Has a Limited Right to file a Habeas Petition but Must do so Properly
Post number 5387
In Tami Duvall v. State Of Indiana, No. 1:25-cv-01239-SEB-TAB, United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division (July 1, 2026) Indiana prisoner Tami Duvall filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2011 Indiana convictions for murder, insurance fraud, and obstruction of justice.
Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendment of pleadings, allowing amendment as of course within specified time limits and otherwise permitting amendment with leave of court when justice so requires.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to strike redundant matter. Rule 5 of the Rules ...
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 ...