Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
May 21, 2026
Proactive Insurer Makes a Fraudster Pay

Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355

Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.

Transamerica surveilled Egan during each period of surveillance, there was no evidence that an in-home care provider actually treated Egan. Based on the surveillance evidence, an independent medical examiner retracted an initial opinion that Egan suffered from function loss and determined that Egan had no loss.

Transamerica concluded that Egan had engaged in fraud and filed this lawsuit in July 2025. The complaint alleges claims against Egan for insurance fraud, negligence, civil theft, breach of contract, and the like, along with a request for declaration that Egan’s policy coverage is lapsed and void. Transamerica alleges that it paid Egan a total of $148,497.47 in benefits, among other damages incurred in relation to Egan’s conduct.

LAW:

The court evaluated the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), which permits default judgment against a defendant who fails to defend.

The court also confirmed subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and personal jurisdiction based on service within the district. For relief, the court relied on California Penal Code section 496(c) for treble damages and attorney’s fees on the civil theft claim, and California Civil Code section 3288 for prejudgment interest.

DISCUSSION:

The opinion addressed three main issues: whether the court had jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, whether default judgment should be entered after Egan failed to appear, and what relief Transamerica was entitled to recover.

The court first confirmed both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, then turned to the default judgment framework, and finally calculated the recoverable damages, fees, costs, and interest.

ANALYSIS:

The court found that Transamerica had plausibly alleged fraud and related wrongdoing because the complaint described false statements about Egan’s condition, repeated submissions seeking benefits, and later surveillance evidence contradicting those claims. Because Egan was properly served but never appeared, the well-pleaded allegations were taken as true for purposes of default judgment, except as to damages.

The court determined that Transamerica would be prejudiced without a remedy, the complaint was sufficient, the requested damages were tied to documented losses, and there was no indication of excusable neglect or a meaningful factual dispute.

CONCLUSION:

The court granted Transamerica’s motion for default judgment against Egan. It held that jurisdiction was proper, the complaint adequately alleged fraud and related claims, and the default judgment factors supported relief.

Transamerica recovered trebled damages based on benefits paid and investigation costs, along with attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, while punitive damages, waiv premiums, and declaratory relief were denied.

THE RELIEF

Transamerica has established by declaration that it paid Egan $148,497.47 in benefits, and paid $23,801.16 for the surveillance and independent medical examinations. The combined amount of $172,298.63 for these losses is trebled under California Penal Code Section 496(c) for the civil theft claim.

Transamerica has incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of $35,072.50, and costs in the amount of $1,031.17, all of which were documented by declaration. See id. ¶ 8. Attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded for the civil theft claim under California Penal Code Section 496(c). The Court’s review of the fees and costs indicates they are reasonable.

Prejudgment interest is awarded under California Civil Code Section 3288 at the rate of 7% per annum.

ZALMA OPINION

It is not nice to ask an insurer to pay for care to which the insured was not entitled. The insurer, once it determined it had been defrauded, it was proactive, sued the fraudster and served him only to have him give up, default, and a judgment was entered in favor of Transamerica and gave it a judgment it might take ten years or more to collect.

(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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
7 hours ago
Suing for Services Provided, and Paid for, is Fraud

Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment

Post 4854

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW

Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...

post photo preview
September 29, 2026
Court Partially Limits Evidence to Present at Trial

Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes

Post 4853

Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine

In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.

The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...

post photo preview
September 29, 2026
Court Partially Limits Evidence to Present at Trial

Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes

Post 4853

Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine

In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.

The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals