Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Contradictory Testimony Creates a Material Dispute of Facts
Post number 5317
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v780caq-liar-liar-pants-on-fire.html and at https://youtu.be/u5QShyNVJEU, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
When Contradictory Sworn Testimony are Presented Summary Judgment Fails
In Jules Francois Parisien MD, as Assignee of Manuel Plasencia v. Erie Insurance Company of New York, Index No. CV-759232-24/RI, 2026 NY Slip Op 50400(U), Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (March 25, 2026) dealt with the insurer’s motion for summary judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2024, an accident occurred involving two vehicles: one driven by Miguel Angel Palaciosromero and the other by Mohamed Mohamed. Manuel Plasencia, a passenger in Palaciosromero’s vehicle, sought No-Fault benefits totaling $1,449.69. Erie Insurance Company, the insurer of Plasencia, denied the claim, asserting the accident was staged. The plaintiff initiated this action seeking payment, and Erie Insurance moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case, arguing there were no material factual disputes and that the accident was staged.
LEGAL ISSUES
New York law recognizes that intentional and staged collisions, regardless of motive, are not covered accidents under an insurance policy. Insurers may seek summary judgment if required verification information is not provided by the plaintiff. However, to prevail on summary judgment, the insurer must provide sufficient proof showing the absence of any material fact. Mere suspicion is insufficient; credible evidence is required.
It is well settled that an intentional and staged collision caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident under a policy of insurance. In truth, the intentional nature of the event does not have to be rooted in efforts to defraud an insurance company, rather, any reason the event is intentional will foreclose the availability of No-Fault benefits
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Erie Insurance’s motion relied on testimony from Mohamed Mohamed, who stated only two individuals were in the Palaciosromero vehicle at the time of the accident. Contrarily, Palaciosromero, Plasencia, and Francisco Monseratte each testified under oath that all three were present in the vehicle. This conflicting testimony raised questions about the credibility and accuracy of the witness accounts.
It is not a court’s function on a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations or resolve factual disputes. Instead, it must identify whether material issues of fact exist. Because the number of vehicle occupants at the time of the accident was in dispute, and with credible testimony supporting both positions, summary judgment was not appropriate. The presence of triable issues of fact precludes dismissal at this stage, consistent with New York precedent.
In this case, clearly, there are credibility determinations that must be made concerning whether Monseratte was a passenger in the vehicle. That determination cannot be made at this juncture because of contradictory sworn statements.
Regarding that sole issue, upon which the entire allegation of fraud is based, there is no inconsistency. There are, however, credibility issues with Mohamed and the occupants of the vehicle. Precisely for these reasons summary judgement must be denied.
ZALMA OPINION
There is no question if a claimant was not in the car at the time of the accident that fraud has been attempted. However, the three occupants all testified that Manuel Plasencia was in the vehicle and Mohammed testified he was not. The facts are in dispute and summary judgment cannot lie because there are material facts in dispute. This case teaches that when an insurer seeks to prove an accident was staged it needs admissible evidence that is not disputed by other admissible evidence. If someone was lying it is up to the trier of fact to determine which witness was credible.
(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://gbarryzalma.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...
