Multiple Suits or Arbitration on Fraudulent Claims Irreparably Harm GEICO
Post number 5279
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gAfNUN82 and at https://lnkd.in/gFxYpCmR, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
GEICO Successfully Fights No Fault Auto Insurance Claims Fraud by Fraudsters Seeking Independent Trials or Arbitrations for Each Suspected Fraudulent Claim
In Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, GEICO Casualty Company v. Bhargav Patel, MD, Patel Medical Care, P.C., John Doe Defendants 1 through 10, No. 24-191, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (February 3, 2026) Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and its subsidiaries, brought a civil action under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”) against Dr. Bhargav Patel, Patel Medical Care, P.C., and other associated defendants.
GEICO alleged that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to exploit New York’s no-fault automobile insurance laws, submitting millions of dollars in reimbursement claims for treatments that were allegedly medically unnecessary, experimental, excessive, or even fictitious.
FACTS
After GEICO denied or disputed these claims, the defendants initiated over 600 independent collection actions in New York state courts and arbitration tribunals, seeking more than $2 million in judgments against GEICO.
LEGAL ISSUES
The case centers on the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, and the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
GEICO sought a preliminary injunction to halt all of the defendants’ ongoing and future collection actions in state court and arbitration, arguing that these multiple proceedings threatened irreparable harm and could obscure the full scope of the alleged fraudulent scheme. The district court granted the injunction, finding GEICO had demonstrated irreparable harm due to the risk of inconsistent judgments and the piecemeal litigation of its fraud defenses.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the injunction for abuse of discretion and found none.
Reviewing the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, the Second Circuit identified none. The court did not clearly err in concluding that the parallel proceedings posed a risk of irreparable harm to GEICO: the potential of inconsistent judgments posed that risk, as did the possibility that the alleged overarching fraudulent scheme would be obscured by a requirement that GEICO’s fraud defense be asserted piecemeal in the numerous individual state collection proceedings.
Finally, in accordance with the recent decision in State Farm v. Tri-Borough NY Medical Practice, P.C., 120 F.4th 59 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit concluded that the preliminary injunction did not violate the Anti-Injunction Act.
To demonstrate that the district court’s failure to provide the requested relief will cause it irreparable harm, the movant must show an “injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages.” The injury must also be a “continuing” one.
BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS
The Second Circuit explained, when a preliminary injunction is sought based on a serious question going to the merits of a case the movant must further demonstrate that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor. This factor requires the district court to balance the competing claims of injury and consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.
The district court determined that, if the expedited state court collections actions were to be stayed, Defendants would at the worst suffer from delayed recovery of payment. But if the federal court action is meritorious and the state court actions not stayed, the court reasoned, GEICO would suffer the irreparable harm described above weighing the hardships in favor of GEICO.
GEICO sufficiently alleged that the massive fraudulent scheme here becomes apparent only when the claims are analyzed altogether. The risks created by disaggregating the scheme into individual actions-both financial and of concealment-amount to allowing irreparable harm to GEICO if the actions are permitted to proceed.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, upholding the preliminary injunction in favor of GEICO.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud is estimated to take $308 billion every year from the US insurance industry. GEICO alleged the defendants presented hundreds of fraudulent claims and whenever GEICO refused to pay they sued it piecemeal forcing GEICO into hundreds of trials where different results, to the detriment of GEICO would become a certainty causing it irreparable harm. The RICO suits give GEICO a chance to fairness and the injunction was necessary and proper to protect its assets from fraud.
(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...
