Swoop & Squat Fails
Posted on July 16, 2026 by Barry Zalma
The Only Solution to Fraud is to Take the Profit Out of the Crime
It Takes Courage to Fight the Fraudster
Post number 5395
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 Defendants’ vehicle contacted the rear bumper of Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Marin testified that she was traveling at the posted speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour prior to the Accident, and that she decelerated by removing her foot from the accelerator prior to impact. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ vehicle was “overtaking cars on the right while remaining in the left lane. Defendants acknowledge that Defendants’ vehicle was in the left lane but contend that the Video shows that other vehicles were passing Defendants’ vehicle on the right.
On March 21, 2024, Plaintiffs’ no-fault insurance carrier, LM General Insurance Company, also known as “Liberty Mutual,” filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ healthcare providers, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Accident was “not the product of a covered event as it was the product of staged and/or intentional event,” which was “perpetrated by [Plaintiffs] with the intent to obtain insurance benefits that [Plaintiffs] would not otherwise be entitled to receive.”
The prior no-fault litigation and arbitration proceedings involved allegations that the accident was staged, even though Plaintiffs were discontinued from the state action without prejudice and were not parties to the arbitrations.
LAW:
Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Reliable video evidence may control over a party’s contrary version of events when the recording blatantly contradicts that version. For fraud under New York law, Defendants had to establish material misrepresentation or omission, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages by clear and convincing evidence.
DISCUSSION:
The court found the dashcam video dispositive on liability.
It showed Defendants’ tractor-trailer maintaining a steady and safe distance for approximately thirty-five seconds before Plaintiffs’ vehicle suddenly braked with no vehicle, obstruction, pothole, construction, or other hazard ahead.
Plaintiffs’ explanations were speculative, while the video and witness testimony supported Defendants’ position that the unexplained stop caused the accident. The court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants failed to maintain a safe distance or improperly used the left lane, finding no causal violation sufficient to impose liability on Defendants.
ANALYSIS:
Because the undisputed video evidence eliminated any reasonable inference that Defendants caused the collision, the court held that Plaintiffs’ vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
Liability was resolved in Defendants’ favor and made it unnecessary to address Defendants’ alternative argument that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy New York’s serious-injury threshold. However, the fraud counterclaim survived because the prior state action and no-fault arbitration decisions had no preclusive effect against Plaintiffs, and Defendants did not adequately establish each fraud element on summary judgment.
CONCLUSION:
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability was denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the fraud counterclaim was denied, leaving that counterclaim for trial.
ZALMA OPINION
The swoop and squat is a type of insurance fraud where the driver of the fraudster’s car stops suddenly in front of an 18 Wheeler assuming it is insured and then making fake bodily injury claims. Plaintiffs sued Defendants in diversity after a rear-end collision on the Whitestone Expressway in Queens, New York. Plaintiffs attempted fraud by stopping in the middle of a highway in front of Marc J. Paynter’stractor-trailer. He fought and counterclaimed for damages. The trial will decide if Paynter can prove the fraud and get damages from the criminals.
(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 ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
