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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
