To Prove Fraud Admissible Evidence is Required
Post 5200

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g9cmMseN and at https://lnkd.in/g5eAYwdN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Allegations That Health Care Providers Assist in No Fault Fraud Escape MSJ

In NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and any and all of their subsidiaries, affiliates and/or parent companies. Plaintiffs v. BILLEESHA BROWN, MANUEL A. CRUZ, ALGELIS TATIS, The “Individual Defendants”, et al and the “Healthcare Provider Defendants”, Index No. 618243/2023, 2025 NY Slip Op 33374(U), Motion Seq. No. 003, Supreme Court, Nassau County (September 15, 2025) dealt with a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) filed by the insurers.

Case Overview:

This is a declaratory judgment action where the plaintiff, NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, seeks a determination that it is not obligated to provide first-party automobile insurance coverage, including No Fault benefits and/or uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, in connection with a motor vehicle collision alleged to have occurred on August 7, 2022.

Incident Details:

The incident involved a NATIONWIDE insured vehicle driven by BILLEESHA BROWN, with passengers MANUEL A. CRUZ and ALGELIS TATIS. The vehicle was reportedly struck in the left rear by a hit-and-run vehicle, causing BROWN to lose control and hit the highway dividers.

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

The plaintiff argued that the Individual Defendants staged and/or intentionally caused the collision and made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of fact, and false and/or fraudulent statements in presenting their claims to NATIONWIDE. The plaintiff relies on discrepancies in BROWN’s representation and EZ Pass records to suggest that the Individual Defendants were not in the insured vehicle at the time of the incident.

COURT’S FINDINGS:

The court found that the discrepancies raised suspicion but were not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the Individual Defendants made material misrepresentations about their presence in the vehicle. The court also noted that an intentional and staged collision caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident under a policy of insurance.

Legal Standards:

The court referenced several cases to articulate the standard of proof required for summary judgment. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must demonstrate, prima facie, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the absence of any issues of material fact.

ANALYSIS

Summary Judgment Decision:

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the higher burden of proof required for such a motion.

The Court acknowledges that on plaintiff s prior motion for a default judgment, the Court found plaintiffs prima facie proof sufficient for purposes of granting the motion. On a motion for a default judgment, however, the defaulting defendants are deemed to have admitted all of the allegations of the complaint and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, and the plaintiff heed only establish that a viable cause of action exists.

The standard of proof applicable upon a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the insurer is not required to pay No Fault claims submitted by provider defendants has been articulated consistently by the Second Department, and is controlling authority for any determination by this Court,

It is well settled that an intentional and staged collision caused in the furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident under a policy of insurance. The Court’s analysis of the evidence as it pertains to the issues of the intentional nature of the occurrence or the fraudulent presentation of the claim is set forth in entire Summary Judgment Decision and need not be repeated here. As stated by the Court in the Summary Judgment Decision, most of the alleged discrepancies in the EUO testimony of the Individual Defendants were not material to the claim and that the incident was intentional or conclusive of a material misrepresentation in the presentation of the claim.

The EZ Pass records only demonstrate the location of the second vehicle on the night in question; they do not establish who occupied the second vehicle, or that the Individual Defendants did not occupy the subject vehicle. Plaintiffs investigator makes an inferential leap that is unsupported by admissible proof. Without more, the evidence presented raises issues of fact or credibility which are appropriately determined by the trier of fact and the motion for summary judgment was rejected.

ZALMA OPINION

Nationwide, like other no-fault insurers doing business in New York lose much money as a result of fraud and staged accidents, fight back by suing those who staged the accidents and the health care providers that faked treatment of non-injured fraudsters. Nationwide proved some of the fraud because the defendants defaulted but will need to produce more evidence of fraud at trial that is more than an unsupported inferential leap of fact.

(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.