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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
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 ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
