Formulaic Recitation Of The Elements Of Civil Conspiracy Are Insufficient
Post number 5320
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPACkgWq and at https://lnkd.in/gsaxij7D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Hassan Fayad v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., No. 2:25-cv-10930, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (March 24, 2026) Plaintiff Hassan Fayad, the owner of several businesses providing transportation, diagnostics, testing, and therapy services, regularly billed insurance companies for these services, was arrested and tried for fraud, convicted, had the conviction overruled and sued the insurers and prosecutors he found responsible.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By January 2020, Liberty Mutual, Progressive, Allstate, and Esurance suspected fraudulent activity and filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Attorney General (MDAG). The insurers alleged that Fayad and others billed Michigan auto insurance policies for profit without actually providing medically necessary services, or any services at all.
Fayad was subsequently charged in state court for conspiracy to commit false pretenses and insurance fraud. He sued the insurers and two prosecuting attorneys, asserting violations under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and state law, including claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, due process violations, civil conspiracy, and gross negligence.
In April 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Fayad for aggravated identity theft and indicted Fayad for wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and tax evasion. After a superseding indictment and a judgment of partial acquittal a jury tried and found Fayad guilty of one count of aggravated identity theft in January 2024 but in December 2024, by stipulation of the parties, the Court vacated the jury’s verdict and dismissed that count, along with “all other outstanding counts in the underlying matter” against Fayad.
Fayad sued Fairley and Glenn, as well as Insurer Defendants, claiming that they conspired together to wrongfully charge him, obtain a warrant to arrest him, and freeze and encumber his assets. Defendants Allstate, Liberty Mutual and Progressive also moved to dismiss,
LEGAL ISSUES
Fayad’s complaint alleged federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and various state law claims. Section 1983 requires that the defendants be state actors or that their conduct be fairly attributable to the state. Prosecuting attorneys are generally afforded absolute immunity from damages for actions taken within their prosecutorial role. Civil conspiracy claims require specific factual allegations demonstrating an agreement between parties to commit an unlawful act.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The court found that the prosecuting attorneys were entitled to immunity from Fayad’s claims, as their actions fell within their official prosecutorial duties. Fayad’s pleadings regarding civil conspiracy were insufficient, lacking factual details necessary to support such a claim. Furthermore, the insurance companies (Insurer Defendants) were not state actors and thus could not be held liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations.
At bottom, Fayad’s complaint plainly reads as “a formulaic recitation of the elements of” civil conspiracy, which “will not do” for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6).
With no viable federal claims remaining, only state law claims were left for adjudication.
Glenn was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity because there was no conduct identified as outside of Glenn’s role as an advocate — including her conduct that was allegedly purely investigative. A plaintiff cannot sustain a false arrest claim where a case that was ultimately dismissed for lack of probable cause began with an apparently valid, lawfully obtained, and properly executed warrant
CONCLUSION
In sum, Fayad’s claims against all Defendants will be dismissed under Civil Rule 12(b)(6)
Because the federal claims were dismissed and only state law claims remained, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims. Accordingly, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted, and the case was dismissed in its entirety.
ZALMA OPINION
Mr. Fayad was a very lucky man with regard to the charges brought against him by the US Department of Justice, found guilty and then had the conviction dropped voluntarily. Adding insult to the failure to convict him convincingly he sued the prosecutors and the insurers who caused his arrest. The case was properly dismissed and he can try his state based claims but might lose those as well. Vengeance is not appropriate in court.
(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 ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
