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.
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
