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.
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
