Arsonist Incompetently Moves Pro Se to Avoid Prison
Post 5239
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRX8TfKn, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gY3Jvnqp and at https://lnkd.in/gRCaaf-3, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Christopher A. Barosh v. Morris Houser, et al., Civ. No. 22-0769, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (November 25, 2025) a convicted arsonist and insurance fraudster moved the USDC acting in Pro se filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Reid’s Recommendation that the US District Judge dismiss his § 2254 Petition to avoid jail.
BACKGROUND
In October 2005, Barosh set fire to his girlfriend’s Philadelphia home — some 25 hours before the cancellation of the property’s insurance policy. Several witnesses saw Barosh leaving the property shortly before the fire erupted. After the fire, Barosh made “two separate admissions of guilt.”
He attempted to pay an acquaintance to provide him with an alibi for the time of the arson. The eyewitnesses, brother, and acquaintance all testified at trial.
In December 2012, a Philadelphia jury convicted Barosh of arson and insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 9.5 to 22 years’ incarceration.
The Superior Court rejected Barosh’s direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied allocatur (the right to appeal).
Acting Pro se, Barosh sought Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) relief. At some point, Barosh was represented by counsel. Before the PCRA Court issued a decision, Barosh appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed his claims as premature. The PCRA Court then issued a Notice to Dismiss and — after Barosh filed two more premature appeals — formally dismissed his Petition. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court again denied allocatur.
in April 2022, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Reid for a Report and Recommendation. Respondents oppose relief. Judge Reid recommended that the District Court Judge dismiss Barosh’s Petition because he filed four months after the one-year deadline.
The District Court Judge reviewed de novo those portions of the Report to which Barosh files timely, specific objections and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings or recommendations.
OBJECTIONS
Barosh argued that Judge Reid should have ruled that the AEDPA limitations clock was equitably tolled. However, the limitations clock is tolled only if Barosh has shown: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.
Actual Innocence
Barosh argued, in the alternative, that Judge Reid should have excused his untimely filing because the actual innocence exception applies. An actual innocence claim requires a petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence — whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial. Barosh offered no new evidence.
The District Court on the 24th day of November, 2025, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation Petitioner’s Objections and Respondent’s Response it was ORDERED that:
1 Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED;
2 Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3 Petitioner’s claims are DISMISSED;
4 A certificate of appealability will not issue; and
5 The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.
ZALMA OPINION
I never are surprised that people who are convicted of the most dangerous and violent form of insurance fraud – Arson for Profit – have the chutzpah (unmitigated gall) to continue to move the courts for freedom or reduction of sentence without facts or law supporting their claims. The court did not fall for the attempt, let the Magistrate Judge do the work and then refused the application for relief. He stays in jail as he should.
(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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
