Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – October 15, 2021

Posted on October 15, 2021 by Barry Zalma

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter Volume 25, Number 20

Read the full text of ZIFL at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-6854754059379990528 and at https://zalma.com/blog and see the video at https://youtu.be/mwtG3NGeOvw and at https://rumble.com/vnqr76-zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-october-15-2021.html,

Criminal Caused Suit on Policy to Drag on for More than Six Years

Court Finally Stopped an Unconscionable Level of Overlitigation

United States District Judge Gary R. Brown was faced with a legal dispute that, perhaps because the defendant was a criminal, went on for years without a final disposition. In Principal Life Insurance Company v. Jason P. Brand, No. CV 15-CV-3804, United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 29, 2021) the case was reduced to seven years on disputes that appeared to be relatively straightforward.

Defendant and his businesses, DASO Development Corp. and Narco Freedom, Inc., for insurance fraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree, charges to which defendant would plead guilty.

Defendant filed a disability claim based upon anxiety.

Principal Life, for its part, acted quickly and rescinded the policy and

Filed a declaratory relief action.

Proactive Insurer Has to Fight to Renew Judgment Against Convicted Fraudster

Insurer’s $7,870,557.89 Judgment Against Fraudster Stands

Insurer May Collect on Default Judgment Against Fraudster

In People of The State of California, ex rel. Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club of Southern California v. Alex Semyon Mirsky, B297321, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division (September 21, 2021) The Automobile Club of Southern California (Interinsurance Exchange) renewed the judgment in 2013, and in 2018 it mailed notice of the renewal to Mirsky at an address Interinsurance Exchange claimed was Mirsky’s last known address. Mirsky filed a motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, or, in the alterative, vacate the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). The trial court denied the motion, concluding Mirsky’s motion to vacate the renewal of judgment was untimely and Mirsky failed to meet his burden to show the default judgment was void.

ClaimSchool, Inc. – Insurance Education

Insurance Education from Barry Zalma

Good News From the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud

Health Insurance Fraud Convictions

Videos on YouTube and Rumble.com of Zalma on Insurance

Other Insurance Fraud Convictions

© 2021 – Barry Zalma