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.
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 ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
