Agent Loses License for Misappropriating Insurers Funds
Post 5254
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gPpkx-np and at https://lnkd.in/g7AidnXS, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Agent Fraud Fails
In Rochell Provost v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administrative Law And Louisiana Department Of Insurance, No. 2025 CA 0492, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit (December 19, 2025) the Louisiana Department of Insurance (LDI) successfully appealed a district court judgment that reinstated Rochell Provost’s insurance producer license and reversed a $5,000 fine previously assessed against her.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying dispute began when Union National Life Insurance Company/Kemper Life terminated Ms. Provost for cause, alleging she had committed fraudulent activity and misappropriated $31,471.39 in company funds. An investigative report supporting these findings was sent to LDI.
Following receipt of the report, LDI notified Ms. Provost of proposed regulatory action concerning the collection and failure to deposit insurance premiums. The Commissioner of Insurance proposed suspending or revoking her license and gave Ms. Provost the opportunity to respond. When no response was received, LDI formally revoked her license and imposed the fine, advising her of her right to an administrative appeal.
The district court initially reinstated Ms. Provost’s license and reversed the fine, but LDI appealed this decision.
THE APPEAL
Ms. Provost appealed, arguing the allegations were false and attributing her inability to deposit premiums to computer software issues and alleged workplace vendettas. The administrative law hearing was conducted telephonically with testimony from LDI’s Office of Insurance Fraud personnel about their investigation.
ANALYSIS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act (the “Act”) governs the judicial review of a final decision in an agency adjudication. The exclusive grounds upon which an administrative agency’s decision may be reversed or modified on appeal is codified at La. R.S. 49:978.1(G).
The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
Made upon unlawful procedure;
Affected by other error of law;
Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency’s determination of credibility issues.
Any one of the six bases listed in the Act is sufficient to modify or reverse an agency determination. An administrative agency’s conclusion is “capricious” when it has no substantial evidence to support it. Likewise, the word “arbitrary” implies a disregard of evidence or the proper weight thereof.
The proceedings and findings of an administrative agency are presumed to be legitimate and correct. The burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate any grounds for reversal or modification.
Pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1554(A), the Commissioner of Insurance may revoke an insurance producer license, or may levy a fine, or any combination of these actions.
On appeal, LDI asserted that its revocation of Ms. Provost’s license and assessment of a fine was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and in fact was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. After an independent review of the administrative record, the Court of Appeals agreed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment, upholding the administrative revocation and fine. The case centered on statutory interpretation of the insurance code, the sufficiency of evidence regarding alleged misappropriation, and administrative due process related to notice and opportunity to be heard.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s September 2, 2025 amended judgment granting Rochell Provost’s Petition for Judicial Review by Trial De Novo and reinstated the Division of Administrative Law’s decision and order dated January 19, 2024, affirming the LDI’s revocation of insurance producer license number 639650, issued to Rochell Provost, and assessment of a $5,000.00 fine.
ZALMA OPINION
Ms. Provost’s actions and appeal revealed an extreme type of “Chutzpah” (Yiddish for unmitigated gall) by first stealing from the insurer she represented as an agent by keeping the premiums she collected and then claiming it was all due to software difficulties. She convinced the trial court only to have her actions reviewed by the Court of Appeals who affirmed the actions of the LDI.
(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 ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
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...
