Lie About Criminal Background & Insurer Will Try to Rescind
Post number 5277
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gk2N3i_z, See the video at https://lnkd.in/gdRjkdNh and at https://lnkd.in/gTszVnru and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Pro Se Defendant Admits Misrepresentation but Claimed no Intent to Defraud
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Sheba S. Gopaul, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02454-LKG, United States District Court, D. Maryland (January 15, 2026) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Sheba S. Gopaul, who represented herself (pro se).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
MetLife alleged that Ms. Gopaul made fraudulent material misrepresentations, misstatements, and/or omissions about her criminal history in her 2015 application for a disability income insurance policy. The company claimed that it would not have issued the policy had it known the true facts.
Ms. Gopaul completed the application on June 18, 2015, and agreed in writing that all statements were true and complete, and that MetLife could rely on them in deciding whether to issue the policy.
Ms. Gopaul submitted an initial claim for disability benefits form to MetLife. In the disability claim, Ms. Gopaul claimed total disability from her occupation as the CEO/CFO of a healthcare company, due to moderate to severe pain in her pelvis, knee and hip when standing, climbing, walking, bending and lifting, due to a series of falls in June and August of 2019, along with postpartum depression and anxiety after delivering a baby in December of 2019.
The crimes misrepresented were the following crimes for which she was convicted: Theft, Prostitution, U/U use of livestock, Grand Larceny-credit cards (Felony), Obtaining Money Under False Pretense and auto theft.
LEGAL ISSUES
The court reviewed the matter as a declaratory judgment action, applying principles governing insurance contracts, including the legal standards for rescission due to material misrepresentation. Under Maryland law, an insurer may rescind a policy if it can prove that a material misrepresentation was made in the application and that the misrepresentation affected the company’s decision to issue the policy.
ANALYSIS
After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that MetLife had established a basis for some, but not all, of its claims for summary judgment. Specifically, the court found sufficient evidence supporting MetLife’s contention that Ms. Gopaul made material misrepresentations regarding her criminal history, which were significant to MetLife’s decision-making process but did not prove that the misrepresentations were fraudulent.
MetLife contended that it would not have issued the Policy to Ms. Gopaul had it known about these three prior felony convictions and the multiple misdemeanor convictions sounding in fraud, because she would have been deemed an unacceptable insured due to both a medical and financial risk.
MetLife’s Rescission Of The Policy
There must be sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
The Omitted Convictions Are Material
The undisputed material facts show that Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were material, because MetLife would not have issued the Policy had it known about these prior convictions.
Material And Fraudulent Misrepresentations
The burden is on the insurer to establish fraud or misrepresentation by the insured in the application for insurance. The undisputed material facts in this case show that Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were material. But, the Court concluded there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were fraudulent.
Made Fraudulent Misrepresentations Regarding Her Criminal History
The Court was not satisfied that the undisputed material facts establish that Ms. Gopaul’s material misrepresentations and/or omissions to MetLife about her criminal history were fraudulent. Ms. Gopaul’s misrepresentations and/or omissions about her criminal history were not established as made for the purpose of defrauding MetLife.
ZALMA OPINION
Making a material misrepresentation in an application is usually sufficient to prove an insurer’s right to rescind. The USDC, perhaps giving the benefits of all doubt to a pro se defendant, found that although she admitted she lied on the application she did not do so to defraud the insurer. A trial before a reasonable jury who do not feel sorry for a pro se defendant should confirm the rescission.
(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.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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...
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...
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 ...
