PIP Fraud Disputes Should Never be Limited to Arbitration
Post number 5269
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gn7YmPny, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4HzAf2r and at https://lnkd.in/gTFNBc_Z, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. Active Medical Care, P.C. et al, No. 2:24-cv-10909 (BRM) (JRA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (January 9, 2026) Defendants moved to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings (“Motion”). Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance entities opposed.
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings was administratively terminated, and it was further ordered that the parties shall jointly notify the Court as soon as a decision is issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the appeal of Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, et al. v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., et al. Supreme Court Docket No.: 090337.
ANALYSIS
The central dispute was whether GEICO’s IFPA claims are subject to arbitration and, if so, whether the proceedings for both arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims should be stayed. Because of the grant of certification in Carteret Comprehensive the USDC and others administratively terminated similar actions brought by GEICO pending a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The Attorney General for the state of New Jersey, in his amicus brief concluded, as follows:
“In sum, a fair reading of the Appellate Division’s published decision shows that it thoroughly considered the statutes, the trial court’s orders, and all of Defendants’ arguments before rejecting them. That Defendants disagree with its decision does not constitute a sufficient basis for certification. Nor is certification warranted in the interests of justice or for any “special reasons.”
Defendants repeat arguments that were presented to and considered by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division addressed those challenges below
and correctly applied the plain language of statutes and well-settled law to the facts in this matter. Thus, further review by this Court is unwarranted.”
The statute the Supreme Court is considering provides:
“The purpose of this act is to confront aggressively the problem of insurance fraud in New Jersey by facilitating the detection of insurance fraud, eliminating the occurrence of such fraud through the development of fraud prevention programs, requiring the restitution of fraudulently obtained insurance benefits, and reducing the amount of dollars used to pay fraudulent claims.”
It seems obvious to me from the AG’s arguments in its brief that making an insurer arbitrate every potentially fraudulent claim when there is evidence of a conspiracy and multiple fraudulent claims, to allow litigation to fulfill the purpose of the statute, is to eliminate the occurrence of such fraud.
The AG’s brief also concluded:
“In short, a rule channeling affirmative insurance fraud claims to PIP arbitration would negatively impact insurance fraud prevention and weaken the ability of insurance carriers, the Department, and OIFP to each combat insurance fraud. The Legislature did not so intend.”
ZALMA OPINION
The intent of the IFPA is to deter and/or defeat insurance fraud. It makes no sense to make it difficult for the AG and the insurers to fulfill the requirements of the statute.
Because GEICO and Allstate have moved to take the profit out of the crime by suing the fraud perpetrators for damages the fraudsters continue to seek arbitration of each individual claim to make the cost of fighting the fraud too expensive for the insurer and the state of New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has not yet ruled in Carteret Comprehensive so those who deal with insurance fraud must patiently wait for the decision and do everything possible to convince the Supreme Court that defeating fraud is more important than allowing individuals to arbitrate the fraud defense without the access to the discovery available in a tort or RICO lawsuit.
(c) 2026 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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
