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.
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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
