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.
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...
