Refusal to Provide Workers’ Compensation is Expensive
Post 5240
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guC9dnqA, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gVxz-qmk and at https://lnkd.in/gUTAnCZw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Illinois Department of Insurance, Insurance Compliance Department v.USA Water And Fire Restoration, Inc., And Nicholas Pacella, Individually And As Officer, Nos. 23WC021808, 18INC00228, No. 25IWCC0467, the Illinois Department of Insurance (Petitioner) initiated an investigation after the Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (IWBF) was added to a pending workers’ compensation claim. The claim alleged a work-related injury during employment with the Respondents who failed to maintain workers’ compensation Insurance.
Company Overview:
USA Water & Fire Restoration, Inc. was incorporated on January 17, 2014, and dissolved on June 14, 2019, for failure to file annual reports and pay franchise taxes. It then operated under assumed names including USA Board Up & Glass Co. and USA Plumbing and Sewer. The business involved rehabilitating structures damaged by fire or water (e.g., remodeling, repairs), subjecting it to automatic coverage under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).
Officers/Agents:
Tad Christensen (who was later identified as the true officer) had a history of fraud (e.g., 2005 insurance fraud charges under Action Fire Restoration; prior imprisonment). The Commission took judicial notice of Christensen’s criminal history.
Employee Evidence:
Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) quarterly wage reports showed employees (up to 6) from Feb. 2016–Aug. 2017 and Oct. 2017–Apr. 2018; zero reported in Sep. 2017. Illinois Department of Revenue records confirmed business activity (e.g., 2017 tax return signed by Christensen) but incomplete filings.
Violation Periods:
145 total days without coverage while doing business and employing workers.
Key Testimonies
Antonio Smith (Petitioner Investigator, 8 years experience) confirmed company’s subjection to Act; that there was no insurance during violation periods.
Summary of Law - Jurisdiction and Coverage
Section 3(1) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/3):
Automatically subjects employers to the Act if engaged in “erection, maintaining, removing, remodeling, altering or demolishing of any structure.” The company’s fire/water restoration (remodeling damaged structures) qualified.
Section 4(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/4(a)):
Requires all covered employers to secure workers’ compensation coverage via insurance or Commission-approved self-insurance.
Penalties and Culpability
Section 4(d) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/4(d)): For knowing/willful failure to comply with §4(a):
1. Civil penalty up to $500 per day per violation (post-1989 amendments).
2. Minimum $10,000.
3. Each day is a separate offense.
4. Personal liability for corporate officers/directors (e.g., Christensen) if they knowingly/willfully failed; primary liability on employer, secondary on officers if unpaid after 30 days.
Penalty Factors
1. Duration of violation (here: 145 days—significant but not continuous).
2. Number of claims (1 pending).
3. Prior awareness.
4. Number of employees (up to 6).
5. Ability to secure/pay coverage (no evidence of inability).
6. Mitigating circumstances (none alleged; intermittent prior coverage noted in mitigation).
7. Ability to pay penalty (no evidence presented).
Decision and Rationale
Findings:
The Company and Christensen knowingly/willfully violated §4(a) and Rule 9100.90 during 145 days (employees present, business active, no coverage/self-insurance). Violation was “knowing/willful” by inference from ignored notices, history of lapses, and non-appearance.
Penalty Assessed:
Maximum $500/day × 145 days = $72,500 against USA Water & Fire Restoration, Inc., and Tad Christensen (personally as officer). Exceeds minimum $10,000; justified by duration, claim, and awareness, tempered slightly by non-continuous lapses.
Enforcement:
Payable within 30 days by certified check/money order to Commission. Enforceable as circuit court judgment; judicial review per §19(f) of Act (bond fixed at $75,000). Debt owed to State.
ZALMA OPINION
Workers’ Compensation systems allow injured workers to obtain compensation for work related injuries without needing to prove anyone was responsible for the injury. It is a crime in almost every state to fail to report accurately employees for workers’ compensation insurance and a failure to provide any coverage requires punishment.
(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 ...
