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.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
