Insurer Immune from Suit for Good Faith Report to Louisiana Department of Insurance of Suspected Fraud
Post 5224
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gtjRffb5 and at https://lnkd.in/ghWutpe9, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5200 posts.
Appellate Court Gives Plaintiff a Second Chance to Sue Insurer Who Reported Suspected Fraud
In Solon E. Smith v. State Of Louisiana By And Through The Louisiana Department Of Insurance, Cuna Mutual Group, And CMFG Life Insurance Company, No. 2024 CA 0735, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit (October 23, 2025) the appeal addressed whether an insurance company (CMFG Life Insurance Company d/b/a TruStage) is immune from civil liability under Louisiana's Insurance Code for reporting suspected fraud to the Louisiana Department of Insurance (LDI).
FACTS
On December 22, 2022, LDI issued a Suspension Order, ordering Mr. Smith to "cease and desist conducting any business of insurance in the state of Louisiana[.]" On February 8, 2023, LDI issued the Revocation Order permanently revoking Mr. Smith's license to sell insurance and issuing a fine.
On April 19, 2022, the Suspension Order and Revocation Order issued by LDI were reversed by the ALJ as the ALJ determined, "the evidence does not support a finding that [Mr. Smith] violated the relevant statutes." Specifically, the ALJ determined that Mr. Smith having made a typographical error on the application is a much more probable explanation than the alleged act of fraud.
Procedural History
On July 31, 2023 Smith filed a Petition for Damages against LDI, CMFG, and TruStage Financial Group, Inc., alleging defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and unfair trade practices. CMFG claimed no civil liability for good-faith fraud reports. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed CMFG with prejudice.
Relevant Law
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action (La. Code Civ. P. art. 927(A)(5)):
The statute tests the legal sufficiency of the petition and assumes all well-pleaded facts true, but conclusory statements insufficient. For affirmative defenses like immunity, the exception will be overruled unless facts exclude all reasonable hypotheses supporting defense.
Mandatory Fraud Reporting (La. R.S. 22:1926(A)):
Insurers (and others in insurance business) must report suspected fraud to LDI's Office of Insurance Fraud within 60 days of notice.
Immunity from Liability (La. R.S. 22:1928(A)):
No civil suit (e.g., defamation, torts) exists for required reports or information shared with LDI/NAIC/law enforcement unless malice, fraudulent intent, or bad faith. Plaintiff bears burden to allege facts defeating immunity; conclusory claims (e.g., "reckless disregard" ) insufficient.
Court's Analysis and Holding
CMFG qualifies as a mandatory reporter because it is engaged in the insurance business. The Petition facts show CMFG reported based on Broussard's credible affidavit (her belief of fraud due to non-receipt of policy). There was no duty for CMFG to investigate further because the statute shifts that duty to LDI.
Immunity applies because there were no viable causes of action stated.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's January 18, 2024 judgment insofar as it sustained CMFG's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. However, it reversed the portion of the judgment dismissing CMFG from Mr. Smith's suit and remand this matter to the trial court to allow Mr. Smith an opportunity to amend his petition with specific facts showing malice. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing amendment of the Petition. The decision balanced mandatory fraud-reporting duties with protections against malicious reports, emphasizing that conclusory allegations alone cannot defeat immunity.
Dissent (Chief J. McClendon):
The Chief Justice concluded that there was no abuse of discretion because an amendment would be futile given facts of the case. The statute protects insurers from retaliatory suits for good-faith compliance but preserves amendment rights to prevent premature dismissal.
ZALMA OPINION
The statute that requires an insurer to report suspected fraud to the LDI also includes immunity for the insurer's good faith report unless the insurer makes the report with malice. The decision on appeal gives the plaintiff the chance to amend his pleading to find some way to sue the insurer that was not immunized. The Chief Justice's dissent is convincing since an amendment would be futile and defeat the purpose of the immunity statute by making the insurer defend a second time the futile attempt to allege fraud or malice with more than the mere conclusory allegations.
(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 ...
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...
