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 after the policy was purchased.

Subsequent recorded calls, GEICO’s information, Waggeh’s photographs and metadata, Robinson’s phone records, and interviews with Progressive and insurance commissioner investigators supplied additional evidence that the collision occurred before Robinson purchased the policy.

LAW

The Washington Privacy Act generally prohibits recording private conversations without the consent of all parties. Evidence obtained in violation of the Act, as well as evidence exclusively and directly flowing from such a violation, may be subject to suppression.

Suppression requires a proximate causal connection between the unlawful recording and the challenged evidence. Evidence obtained through independent lawful means is not excluded merely because an unlawful act may have been a but-for cause of discovery.

Erroneous admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Washington Privacy Act is prejudicial unless, within reasonable probability, the admission did not materially affect the trial outcome.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Robinson argued that Progressive’s initial call with Samantha was private and was recorded without consent, so the call and all evidence derived from it should have been excluded. The Court of Appeals did not need to decide whether the call was protected under the Washington Privacy Act because any possible error in admitting it was harmless.

The court emphasized that the State’s evidence did not depend on the Samantha call. Progressive’s automated claim system independently flagged the claim because it was submitted shortly after the policy purchase.

GEICO independently provided Progressive with information showing the collision occurred around 12:40 p.m., based on Waggeh’s report and photograph metadata. Progressive then obtained Robinson’s later statements in recorded calls where he was advised of the recording, including his admission that the collision could have occurred earlier than he had claimed.

Additional evidence also came from Robinson’s own phone records, which showed calls to auto-related businesses before the time he claimed the collision occurred, and from a recorded interview with investigators from the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. Because these sources were independent of the initial call, the challenged recording did not materially affect the jury’s verdict.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeals affirmed Robinson’s convictions for felony fraudulent insurance claim and attempted first degree theft. Even if the court assumed the initial Progressive call was admitted in error under the Washington Privacy Act, the error was harmless because substantial independent evidence supported the convictions and the recording did not materially affect the outcome.

ZALMA OPINION

On the same day he was involved in a vehicle collision, Saleem Robinson applied and was approved by Progressive for vehicle insurance coverage. The next day, he contacted Progressive, reported the collision to a Progressive employee, and filed a claim. Evidence of this recorded telephone conversation was admitted in his criminal trial for insurance fraud and theft. The Court of Appeals concluded that the telephone call recorded without consent and the admission of the call at trial did not materially affect the outcome of the trial.

(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.