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.
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 ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at https://rumble.com/v79hhg6-admit-to-crime-and-be-ready-to-do-the-time.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
