Attempt at Intervention Fails
Post number 5366
GEICO Requires Commendation and Emulation for its Action Against Fraud Perpetrators
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-sued-defendants-submitting-thousands-claims-zalma-esq-cfe-k4mdc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Government Employees Insurance Co., et. al. v. Tarakchyan D.C., et al., Civil No. 24-cv-6952 (ZNQ)(JTQ), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (May 29, 2026) GEICO sued medical-provider defendants for allegedly submitting thousands of fraudulent insurance charges for unnecessary treatment.
FACTS:
Air Wolf, a non-party defendant in a separate New York auto-accident case involving one of the same claimants, moved to intervene in order to access discovery and settlement materials and oppose confidentiality restrictions.
ISSUE:
Whether Air Wolf was entitled to intervene in GEICO’s federal fraud action under Rule 24, either as of right or permissively.
LEGAL STANDARD
Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which outlines the requirements for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. This decision addresses the legal standards for both forms of intervention.
Under Rule 24(a), intervention as of right requires a timely motion, a direct and legally protectable interest in the action, impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
Under Rule 24(b), permissive intervention requires a common question of law or fact and must not unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties. Rule 24(c) also requires the movant to attach a pleading stating the claim or defense for intervention.
HOLDING:
The court denied Air Wolf’s motion to intervene.
REASONING:
First, the motion was procedurally defective because Air Wolf failed to attach the required pleading under Rule 24(c). Second, Air Wolf lacked a sufficiently direct legal interest: its claims that a settlement might imply liability or create inconsistent results in the state case were speculative and unsupported.
Third, permissive intervention was inappropriate because the overlap between the federal fraud case and the state negligence case was minimal, and Air Wolf’s broad request for access to confidential litigation materials would disrupt and prejudice the parties.
DISPOSITION:
The Motion to Intervene was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
It is important that an insurer, proactively, works to defeat fraud by suing the perpetrators. The information gained from such a lawsuit avoids HIPPA limitations and privacy claims that would help a bodily injury lawsuit. Air Wolf tried to get that information to help its bodily injury lawsuit. GEICO requires commendation and emulation for its action against fraud perpetrators and the court appropriately kept Air Wolf from intervening.
(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 ...
Taking Money From a Client Trust Account Warrants Severe Disciplinary Sanction
Post number 5383
Stealing from a Client is Reprehensible
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lawyer-state-senator-permanently-disbarred-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ixf9e and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Re: Derrick D.T. Shepherd, No. 2026-OB-00357, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 25, 2026) petitioner Derrick D.T. Shepherd, a former Louisiana State Senator and attorney, pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to commit money laundering after using his client trust account to help launder nearly $141,000 in fraudulently generated bond fees. The Louisiana Supreme Court permanently disbarred him in 2012.
Shepard returned $75,000 to Ms. Moyo and kept the rest of the funds for himself, using $20,000 to retire his campaign debt. To conceal all of this activity, Shepard created false billing statements and time records reflecting work his law firm had purportedly done on behalf of his “client,” Ms. ...
Negligent Hiring Tort not Preempted by Federal Statute
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/faa-authorization-act-does-preempt-all-state-tort-zalma-esq-cfe-6jkvc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al., 608 U.S.__ No. 24-1238, United States Supreme Court (May 14, 2026) Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena while Varela-Mojena was transporting plastic pots through Illinois for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a transportation broker, had arranged the shipment.
Montgomery sued the driver, the motor carrier, the broker, and related entities, alleging that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport despite safety information that allegedly showed Caribe Transport posed an unreasonable risk of crashes and injury.
LAW
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ...
Million Dollar Roundup Verdict Reversed by SCOTUS
FIFRA Preempts the State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claim
Post number 5381
Posted on June 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Missouri, Eastern District, No. 24–1068, argued April 27, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a $1 million judgment found by a Missouri state court.
Facts
John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should have warned users of cancer risks. A jury awarded Durnell more than $1 million on a failure-to-warn theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim.
Monsanto manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer; ...
