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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Specific Jurisdiction is Related to an Activity Conducted Within the Forum State.
Post 5408
Posted on July 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Changan Chu, No. 14-25-00965-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (July 21, 2026) NJM issued an automobile insurance policy in New Jersey to Changan Chu while Chu was a New Jersey resident.
Chu was injured in an auto-pedestrian collision in Harris County, Texas, allegedly caused by an uninsured driver. Chu sued the driver and NJM, seeking a declaration that his UM/UIM coverage was in force and provided $300,000 in limits. NJM filed a special appearance supported by affidavit evidence showing it was a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, had no offices, agents, employees, advertising, registration, or insurance business in Texas, and did not insure any person, property, or risk located in Texas. Chu did not file evidence opposing the special appearance.
LAW
A Texas court may exercise ...
Victims of Fraud Should Always Fight Back Proactively
Post 5398
Posted on July 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Cross-Claim Against Fraudsters Successful
In Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc., et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Health Net Life Insurance Company, B331260, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division (July 16, 2026) a trial verdict in favor of Health Net and against Sovereign, a network of mental health and substance use disorder treatment centers, and Health Net, Inc., Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, and Managed Health Network, Inc. (collectively, Health Net) was appealed to the California Court of Appeals.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Between 2014 and 2016, Sovereign submitted claims to Health Net for medical care provided to more than 400 patients. Health Net paid some claims but rejected many others. Sovereign, as the patients' assignee, sued Health Net for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)....
The Only Solution to Fraud is to Take the Profit Out of the Crime
It Takes Courage to Fight the Fraudster
Post number 5395
Posted on July 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, Sebastian Arroyave Penagos, and Daniel Arroyave Penagos v. Marc J. Paynter and Transport Marc Paynter Inc., No. 23-CV-6498, United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 10, 2026) Plaintiffs sued Defendants in diversity after a rear-end collision on the Whitestone Expressway in Queens, New York. Plaintiffs were in a Subaru driven by Vivian Maritza Triana Marin, while Defendant Marc J. Paynter drove a Transport Marc Paynter Inc. tractor-trailer.
Facts:
Dashcam footage from Defendants’ vehicle showed Plaintiffs’ vehicle braking suddenly in the left lane despite an open roadway ahead. Marin could not identify a specific reason for braking, the passenger plaintiffs did not know why she braked, and a non-party witness testified that Plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped abruptly for no apparent reason.
The Accident occurred when ...
