Insurance License Revoked After Conviction for Wire Fraud
Post number 5327
Insurance Agent Complains When He Loses License After Convicted of Wire Fraud
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gcp-3A56 and at https://lnkd.in/gsWW67S9, plus more than 5300 posts.
In Susan Ochs, Commissioner, New Jersey Department Of Banking And Insurance v. Robert W. Mania, and Heidi Ann Mania, and RHM Benefits, Inc., No. A-3346-23, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (April 15, 2026) Robert W. Mania, along with Heidi Ann Mania and RHM Benefits, Inc., were subject to a final agency decision issued on May 22, 2024, by the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI). The Commissioner revoked Mania’s insurance license and imposed a $16,012.50 penalty for violations of the Insurance Producer Licensing Act (IPLA), specifically N.J.S.A. 17:22A-40(a).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mania appealed the decision, challenging the validity and severity of the sanctions.
Robert was a licensed insurance producer in New Jersey operating through RHM Benefits, Inc. (“RHM”), an entity which he co-owned with his wife, Heidi Ann Mania.
Between 2007 and 2009, Robert and his former employer, Frank Cotroneo, participated in a scheme to increase the brokerage commission rate on the health insurance policy, specifically by surreptitiously diverting a portion of the commission rate to Robert to reimburse him for a debt Cotroneo owed Robert. The scheme involved diverting 1% in commissions through RHM’s bank account. Pursuant to this scheme, Robert received approximately twenty-one checks totaling $141,527 through RHM, which he concealed from the insurer by using his official position to avoid disclosure by directing the funds to his personal post office box.
The scheme eventually came to the attention of the United States Attorney (“U.S. Attorney”) for the District of New Jersey. On July 2, 2012, Robert entered into a plea and cooperation agreement with the U.S. Attorney, under which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342.
An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial decision granting summary decision in DOBI’s favor on all four counts of the Order To Show Cause why his license should be revoked.
The ALJ concluded that Robert’s reporting obligation was triggered upon his awareness of the impending charges, requiring notice within thirty days of executing the plea agreement, not the filing of formal charges, and determined that DOBI proved the violation by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
The ALJ also found that Robert’s undisputed mail fraud conviction established a crime involving dishonesty, supporting discipline under N.J.S.A. and determined that his failure to obtain a waiver and continued licensure warranted a finding that DOBI proved the violation by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
LAW
Mania contended that several counts in the administrative order to show cause should be dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the doctrine of laches, and the entire controversy doctrine.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Mania believed the Commissioner should have imposed lesser sanctions. The Commissioner, however, maintained that the violations were significant enough to warrant both license revocation and a substantial financial penalty, and that the doctrines cited did not preclude enforcement.
CONCLUSION
The Appellate Division reviewed the arguments regarding procedural bars and the appropriateness of the penalties. While Mania sought a reduction in sanctions and dismissal of some counts, the Commissioner’s decision to revoke the license and impose the penalty was upheld, reflecting a strict interpretation of the IPLA and the penalty framework. The court emphasized the importance of regulatory compliance and found no error in the application of legal doctrines or penalty factors.
ZALMA OPINION
When a licensed insurance broker pleaded guilty to wire fraud based on a scheme to defraud an insurer and its insureds lost his license by order of the New Jersey Department Of Banking And Insurance. Unhappy, Mania appealed the order only to have an appellate court refuse his appeal and keep a criminal from serving insurance buyers in the state.
(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 ...
