Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
19 hours ago
Fraudster Fails as a Jail House Lawyer

Chutzpah of Fraud Perpetrator Still Gets 36 years in Prison

Post number 5303

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraudster-fails-jail-house-lawyer-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-araye and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.

Prisoner Should Know Better Than Representing Himself

In The People v. Roderick Nathaniel Washington, B330868, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (March 5, 2026) Roderick Nathaniel Washington was convicted by a jury on numerous counts related to credit card and unemployment insurance fraud.

The investigation revealed that Washington orchestrated two main types of fraud. The first involved credit cards: police searches at the residences of Washington’s girlfriend and his daughter uncovered hundreds of credit profiles, personal identifying information, mail addressed to Washington, fraudulent licenses and credit cards, and forged reports.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Bank Fraud

Washington opened multiple accounts in the names of others, including deceased individuals, and then reported fraudulent activity to avoid paying debts, eventually causing nearly half a million dollars in losses to Synchrony Financial. Washington was found to have information on about 90 Synchrony accounts. Investigation revealed Washington had opened accounts in the name of other people, including dead ones. After opening these accounts, he would claim there was fraudulent activity on the account in order to avoid paying the debt on that account. The company or bank would then provide a new account, which Washington would also fail to pay off. Washington caused just under half a million dollars in loss to bank and credit card company Synchrony Financial.

Unemployment Insurance Fraud

The second type of fraud Washington committed involved California’s Employment Development Department, which runs the state’s unemployment and disability insurance program. The Department relaxed standards during the covid pandemic to address the sudden increased need. After getting through the crisis period, the Department began investigating a series of applications for unemployment benefits all sent from the same IP address.
CONVICTIONS

The jury convicted Washington of:

1. two counts of theft by false pretenses in violation of section 532, subdivision (a);
2. one count of possession of a forged driver’s license in violation of section 470(b);
3. two counts of possession of multiple person’s personal identifying information with intent to defraud in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(3);
4. one count of preparing false documentary evidence in violation of section 134;
5. three counts of unlawful transfer of personal identifying information in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (d)(1);
6. four counts of possession of personal identifying information with intent to defraud in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(2); and
7. 33 counts of unemployment insurance fraud in violation of Unemployment Insurance Code section 2101, subdivision (a). With regard to the unemployment insurance fraud counts, the jury found the loss from the offenses exceeded $500,000 and, after a bifurcated trial, there existed factors in aggravation.

The trial court sentenced Washington to three years on the unemployment insurance fraud count and a consecutive five years for the loss enhancement. The court sentenced Washington to consecutive eight-month terms on the other 32 unemployment insurance fraud counts and 11 of the other counts. In total, the court sentenced Washington to 36 years and eight months in prison.

LEGAL ISSUES

Washington attempted to defeat the testimony of the arresting officer. The court reviewed the case pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, which governs the disclosure of law enforcement personnel records when issues of officer credibility or misconduct are raised.

ANALYSIS

Washington appealed the judgment on several grounds, including requesting review of the trial court’s determinations under Pitchess. The appellate court examined the evidence collected, including the extensive fraudulent materials and the significant losses to financial institutions, and considered whether the trial court properly handled the Pitchess motions and other claims raised on appeal.

DISCUSSION

The Court of Appeal granted Washington’s request to review the trial court’s Pitchess determinations. After review, the court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the evidence, the application of law, or the review of law enforcement records. The appellate panel concluded that the evidence supported the convictions and that Washington’s legal challenges did not warrant reversal.

The trial court noted Washington’s repeated and demonstrated inability to follow the court’s rules, noted that sometimes legislative inaction without more does not signify approval, and this was especially true because precedent could not be applied retroactively. Rejection was appropriate to misconduct occurring like Washington’s acts here.

ZALMA OPINION

Fraudsters, like Washington, continue to prove that their criminal conduct was egregious and attempt to avoid jail with hired lawyers or acting as their own lawyer. Although Washington was a skilled criminal his activity as his own attorney established pure incompetence and an ability to annoy a trial judge beyond restraint. He deserves, and will serve, the 36 years and 8 months in prison.

(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.

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York

Post number 5301

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster

In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.

FACTS

NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 11, 2026
Public Adjusters Attempt to Represent an Insured Subject to APA Clause

Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York

Post number 5301

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster

In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.

FACTS

NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...

00:08:05
placeholder
March 10, 2026
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments

Post number 5300

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish

Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges

In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts

Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...

00:07:28
placeholder
March 12, 2026
Accepting Plaintiff’s Allegations as True The Court Finds Standing

Denying a Claim in the State Gives Court Standing
Post number 5302

Posted on March 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In 5th LLC v. Kemah Capital Holdings, LLC d/b/a Kemah Marine and Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company, No. CIV-25-364-D, United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma (March 10, 20260

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff 5th LLC purchased an insurance policy for its Moonen 83 yacht, covering the period from October 27, 2022, to October 27, 2023. On December 24, 2022, the yacht sustained damage due to seawater intrusion, which Plaintiff alleges should be covered under the policy. Plaintiff filed a claim that was denied three times, each denial referencing Kemah Capital Holdings and signed by a Kemah representative acting on behalf of Clear Spring Property & Casualty Company.

Kemah asserted it had an agreement with Clear Spring to market, broker, and underwrite insurance on Clear Spring’s behalf.

LEGAL ISSUES

Defendant Kemah Capital sought dismissal on three grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter ...

post photo preview
March 09, 2026
Never Lie on an Insurance Application

Rescission of a Life Insurance Policy

Misrepresenting the Use Of Drugs Makes Policy Void from its Inception
Post number 5299

Posted on March 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Rosalia Castillo Bucio, an individual; Hipolito Castillo Bucio, an individual No. 3:24-cv-01567-RBM-KSC, United States District Court, S.D. California (March 2, 2026) Primerica Life Insurance Company sued Rosalia Castillo Bucio and Hipolito Castillo Bucio, seeking to rescind a term life insurance policy issued to Gilberto Castillo.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

. The policy, valued at $614,000, named the defendants as co-beneficiaries. Castillo submitted an application on January 15, 2020, in which he denied any history of drug or alcohol abuse in the past ten years. However, after Castillo’s death on March 28, 2021, medical records revealed that he had used methamphetamine and cocaine prior to the application date, contradicting his representations. Both defendants subsequently filed claims for the death benefit, prompting...

post photo preview
February 24, 2026
Declaring a Policy Void

Contract Breaches that Allow Multiple Different Grounds to Make a Policy Void

More from Excellence in Claims Handling Substack for Subscribers Only. You can Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Posted on February 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma

You’re reading from the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling until you reach the paywall. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the “subscribe” link below.

If an insured breaches one or more material warranties and increases the risk covered by the policy, the contract may be voided by the insurer, depending on the jurisdiction. It is, therefore, essential that every claims investigation include efforts to establish compliance with every warranty.

In Cummings v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 292 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 249 Cal. Rptr. 568 (1988), the Court of Appeal ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals