Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
December 17, 2025
Supreme Court of Louisiana Removes Judge

Judge Who Lied to Get Elected Cannot Serve
Post 5245

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g7MkYfq5, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g9EbtuUC and at https://lnkd.in/grHpMXUB, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

In In Re: Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts, No. 2025-O-01127, Supreme Court of Louisiana (December 11, 2025) the Louisiana Supreme Court in an opinion by Chief Justice Weimer dealt with the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (Commission) that Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts be removed from office for:

1. making false and misleading statements regarding her judicial campaigns;
2. making false and misleading statements to police investigating the reported burglary of her car; and
3. withholding information and providing false, incomplete, or misleading information during the investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), as well as in the proceedings before the Commission.

KEY FACTS

Complaint & Investigation:

In May 2021, an anonymous complaint led to an investigation that the judge made false and misleading statements during judicial campaigns about military service — claiming to be a U.S. Army captain and combat veteran of Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan, when she actually served stateside as a nurse and was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant.

In addition she made false and misleading statements to police regarding a reported car burglary, including misrepresenting the location of the incident and withheld information and provided false, incomplete, or misleading information during the OSC investigation and Commission proceedings.

The Commission found that the statements regarding Respondent's military service were false and misleading in several ways:

1. serve in any capacity during Operation Desert Storm, which took place in 1991, when she was only 16 years old.
2. her claim that she was a veteran of three wars gave the false impression that she served in combat areas overseas. She did not.
3. her claim that she obtained the rank of captain in the Army was also false and misleading.
4. her pattern of misleading information extended to the investigation of the car burglary and subsequent insurance claim.
5. her initial failure to disclose the USAA claim, her misleading statements regarding the location of the burglary, her failure to mention the additional insurance claim, and her contradictory explanations all indicated that she withheld information or provided inaccurate information.

FINDINGS

The Commission found clear and convincing evidence of repeated dishonesty, lack of candor, and attempts to mislead the public, police, insurance company, and the Commission itself.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES & VIOLATIONS

Code of Judicial Conduct Violations:

Violations of Canons 1, 2(A), 7(A)(9), 7(B)(1), and 7(B)(2), which require judges to uphold integrity, avoid impropriety, and be honest in campaign representations.

Louisiana Constitution Article V, § 25(C):

Provides grounds and procedures for judicial discipline, including removal from office for misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Purpose of Discipline:

The primary goal is to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the judiciary, not merely to punish the judge.

OUTCOME
Removal from Office:

The Supreme Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation, ordering Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts’s removal from office, barring her from qualifying for judicial office for five years, and requiring reimbursement of investigation costs.

SIGNIFICANCE

The court emphasized that honesty and trustworthiness are essential judicial qualities. Persistent dishonesty, especially in campaign representations and official investigations, irreparably damages public confidence in the judiciary and warrants the most severe sanction—removal from office.

Respondent's misconduct constitutes a severe and irreparable impact on the integrity of and respect for the judiciary. Here, Respondent has gone beyond mere misrepresentation that misled the public: she created a campaign sign falsely stating that she was an Army captain, paid for multiple campaign ads that reiterated this untruth, falsely conveyed to voters that she was a combat veteran of three wars, and lied to the police about where the burglary of her car occurred, despite the investigating officer's words inviting clarification.

ORDER

The Supreme Court ruled that Respondent, Judge Tiffany Foxworth-Roberts be immediately suspended and disqualified from exercising any judicial functions.

ZALMA OPINION

Judges whose job is to provide justice to the public must be as clean and pure as Ceasar's wife. To blatantly commit insurance fraud and create a situation of stolen valor claiming to be a combat veteran in multiple areas around the world when she actually served as a nurse in the United States, never achieved a rank greater than lieutenant when she claimed to be a Captain, and lied during the investigation of Judiciary Commission caused the Supreme Court to remover her from office and purged the judiciary of any taint.

(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. 

00:09:05
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 01, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – May 1, 2026

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 ...

00:08:23
placeholder
April 30, 2026
The Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Saves a Claim

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 ...

00:08:38
placeholder
April 29, 2026
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense

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 ...

00:11:27
placeholder
12 hours ago

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...

post photo preview
13 hours ago

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...

post photo preview
April 30, 2026
Investigation of First Party Property Claims

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 ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals