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 ...
No Breach of Contract no Bad Faith
Post 4568
Posted on October 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Party Cannot Designate One Witness While Submitting An Undifferentiated Product Of That Witness And An Undesignated Collaborator.
Post 4568
In Dustin Cain; Amanda Cain v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 25-60442, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (October 16, 2026) Dustin and Amanda Cain sought homeowners’ insurance benefits after a tree fell on their Mississippi home on August 27, 2022. State Farm concluded that the tree caused only a roof puncture and that other damage resulted from excluded long-term conditions. It paid $10,042.90 and later an additional $3,130.08.
The Cains relied on an engineering report and contractor estimate asserting substantially greater damage, sued for breach of contract and related relief, and designated Sean Fee as their sole expert. Fee’s report and a later repair estimate were jointly authored with Jim Irmiter, but neither document identified which opinions, work, or ...
Blockchain Fraud Detection Loses Protection
Posted on October 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
John Earl Madden (April 10, 1936 – December 28, 2021) was an American Professional Football Coach and Sports Commentator in the National Football League Seeking Patent & Trademark Protection
BLOCKCHAIN FRAUD
Mr. Madden was more than football. He was working to establish a program called “Fraud Protection Systems, Methods, and Computer Programs for Blockchain Financial Transactions.”
In Ex parte John Madden, Appeal 2026-001497, Application 18/495,506, Technology Center 3600, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (October 14, 2026)
The Examiner rejected claims several numbered claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
THE LAW
Section 101 makes patentable any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are implicitly excluded.
THE PATENT TRIAL AND ...
Sovereign Immunity Defeats Suit Against Police Officers
Post 4866
Posted on October 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Chad Lightfoot, et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 26-434, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (October 9, 2026) Chad Lightfoot was involved in an Orleans Parish automobile accident in 2011 and filed claims with several insurers, including Progressive.
After a related civil dispute, Progressive counsel allegedly submitted a false affidavit stating that Lightfoot had fraudulently received a $50,000 payment. A New Orleans police detective relied on the affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant, and Louisiana State Police Lieutenant Alan Arcana allegedly reported that Lightfoot had received the payment. Lightfoot was arrested in 2015 and charged with theft, insurance fraud, and perjury.
Plaintiffs alleged that no record of the payment existed and that the criminal charges were dismissed on October 15, 2024.
Lightfoot and Geralyn Hawkins filed suit in October 2025 and ...
