Expert May Not Testify About STOLI for Lack of Experience
Post 5227
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g8MPwJxM, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gx6rzPH3 and at https://lnkd.in/gumfUqXv, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Insurer Needs to be Careful When Retaining an Expert With No Experience About the Key Issue in the Case.
In Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 23-236-GBW), Judge: Gregory B. Williams (November 7, 2025) Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. (“Ameritas”) sought to void a $3 million life insurance policy on the life of Marvin Flaks (the “Policy”) as a stranger-originated life insurance (“STOLI”) policy lacking an insurable interest under Delaware law.
Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (“Wilmington Savings”), as securities intermediary and counterclaim-plaintiff, opposed and sought to enforce the Policy.
Motion at Issue:
Wilmington Savings’ Daubert moved the court to exclude testimony of Ameritas’ expert, Michael L. Vild, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The motion targets four categories of Vild’s opinions from his expert reports (served June–August 2025): (1) choice-of-law analysis; (2) STOLI and insurable interest; (3) reasonableness of Ameritas’ investigation; and (4) life insurance investor practices.
Factual Background - STOLI Context:
STOLI involves speculators procuring life insurance policies on strangers’ lives for resale of death benefits, circumventing the “insurable interest” requirement (a policyholder must have a legitimate economic or familial stake in the insured’s continued life to prevent wagering on death.
Delaware’s seminal case, PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Price Dawe 2006 Ins. Tr. (28 A.3d 1059 (Del. 2011)), declared STOLI policies void ab initio as against public policy.
The Policy:
Ameritas alleges it was procured via STOLI scheme and lacks insurable interest.
Expert (Vild’s Qualifications) - Employment:
Partner at Cross & Simon, LLC (2019–present; corporate litigation, no STOLI experience); Director, Delaware DOJ Fraud Division (2017–2019; no shown STOLI work); casino counsel (2008–2017; unrelated); Deputy Insurance Commissioner, Delaware DOI (2005–2008; oversaw regulation, attended NAIC meetings where STOLI/viatical settlements discussed, involved in regulatory discussions but no enacted STOLI regs or direct enforcement); prior law firm roles (1991–2004; no shown STOLI work). J.D. (Notre Dame, 1991); B.Mus. (Ohio State, 1988). Board roles in captive insurance/reinsurance; bar memberships; personal activities (e.g., music, horse racing). Limited recall of direct STOLI work; no litigation or advisory on life insurance/STOLI; captive insurance unrelated to insurable interest.
Legal Standard
Trial courts gatekeep expert testimony, requiring proponent to show (by preponderance) it is:
(a) helpful to trier of fact;
(b) based on sufficient facts/data;
(c) product of reliable methods; and
(d) reliably applied to case facts.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court granted the motion in part (excludes on issues 3–4; partial exclusions on 1–2) and denies in part, emphasizing Vild’s regulatory experience qualifies him for generalized insurance testimony but not ultimate legal conclusions, claims handling, or investor-specific practices.
Conclusion
The court granted preserved Vild’s testimony on general Delaware insurance regulatory interests and STOLI principles (but not case-specific applications) while excluding it on investigation reasonableness and investor practices. Therefore, the ruling narrows Ameritas’ expert evidence ahead of trial on the Policy’s validity, underscoring Daubert’s gatekeeping for topic-specific expertise in insurance disputes.
ZALMA OPINION
STOLI policies are invalid and void from inception in Delaware because they violate the requirement of every life insurance policy that the beneficiary has an insurable interest in the life insured. Rather than being insurance STOLI policies are a gamble on the life of the insured making a profit if the insured dies quickly after the policy was issued. The Insurer retained as an expert a person who knew insurance but had no knowledge of STOLI and wanted to testify about ultimate issues that were the sole province of the court. Applying the gate keeping function the court limited Vild’s testimony to generalized insurance practice.
(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 ...
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 ...
