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.
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 ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
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 ...
