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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
