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.
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...
