قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / After Insurance Fraud Prosecution Rejected Defendant Sue Police

After Insurance Fraud Prosecution Rejected Defendant Sue Police



PROOF REQUIRED TO SUPPORT HARMFUL ACTION AGAINST POLICE

Vicki Davis and Robin Trawick sued the defendants State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the Georgia Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner (" OCI ") because they were arrested for insurance fraud which was later rejected. Defendants Allen and OCI urged the court to dismiss the malicious indictment in V icki H. Davis and Robin R. Trawick v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al. No. 1:21-cv. -2988-MLB, United States District Court, ND Georgia, Atlanta Division (December 23, 2021).

BACKGROUND

On December 26, 2016, a fire destroyed the plaintiff Davis' home and all of her personal belongings. Plaintiff Davis notified defendant State Farm of the fire and made a claim in accordance with her policy. Defendant State Farm extended the coverage and made a payment of $ 239,200.00 for the loss of the property but did not issue payment for the loss of her personal property.

Defendant Allen, an OCI investigator, filed an arrest warrant application with the Magistrate's Court for Grady County, Georgia for plaintiffs' arrests. The application stated that plaintiff Davis "collected insurance money for living expenses that were not legal. Made false information to the insurance company." Plaintiff made his first appearance after being arrested and convicted.

The Grady County Magistrate's Court dismissed the criminal charges for lack of evidence.

The appellant then sued Allen and OCI on three counts: (1) state court prosecution ; (2) federal § 1983 unreasonable seizure of person, and (3) federal § 1983 malicious prosecution. Defendant Allen and OCI moved to resign. Since the plaintiffs did not contest, the OCI should be dismissed and their state law claims for malicious prosecution against defendant Allen should be dismissed. The court therefore dismissed both charges.

DISCUSSION

Immunity of the Eleventh Amendment

Defendant contended that all claims against him in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the plaintiff represents the defendant "Allen is sued in his personal capacity.

Federal § 1983 Unreasonable seizure

The plaintiffs claimed an independent" Fourth Amendment Unreasonable Seizure "claim. deprivation of liberty of the plaintiff. . . without demonstrable probable cause constituted an unreasonable seizure of person in breach of the fourth addendum. 19659009] An allegation of false arrest or imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment applies to seizures without a legal process, such as arrests without a decision. Regardless of the validity of the arrest warrant, regardless of the validity of the arrest warrant, the plaintiff's allegations support a claim for damages from § 1983 rather than a false claim from § 1983.

The court therefore had no choice but to reject the plaintiff's "fourth amendment" the plaintiffs were arrested and detained under the supervision of a arrest warrant.

Federal § 1983 Malicious Prosecution

The plaintiff also sues 19659007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant caused a gross prosecution against them for the crime of insurance fraud and participated and helped continue the prosecution for 231 days. They claim that the defendant knew or should have known that there was no argued probable cause to support the prosecution, which was based on statements from an insurance company that were either deliberately false or made with ruthless disregard for the truth. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant knew that these statements were false or continued the prosecution against the plaintiffs with ruthless disregard for the truth, and consequently the prosecution was carried out intentionally, without probable cause, and finally ended in favor of the plaintiff.

a violation of the fourth addendum and [a] viable constitutional right to damages according to § 1983. " Blue v. Lopaz 901 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018). In order to uphold a claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must overcome two obstacles: [19659020] They must prove that they have been seized in accordance with a lawsuit which infringed the fourth addendum. This burden requires them to "establish:

  1. that the legal process that justified their seizure was constitutionally weak and
  2. that their seizure would otherwise not be justified without legal process.
  3. the elements of the customary tort of malicious prosecution.
  • In order to prosecute a malicious team, a plaintiff must show:
    1. an indictment brought or continued by the present defendant;
    2. with intent and without probable cause;
    3. which was terminated in favor of the accused; and
    4. caused harm to the accused plaintiff.
  • A decision contrary to the fourth addendum on the issue supporting it contains intentional falsehood or ruthless disregard of the truth, which applies to both statements and omissions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant either knew that the insurance company's statements were false or he continued the prosecution with ruthless disregard for the truth. A plaintiff's attack on a declaration must therefore be more than final and must be supported by more than just a desire to cross-examine. There must be accusations of willful lying or of ruthless ignorance of the truth, and these accusations must be accompanied by an offer of evidence. They should point out in particular the part of the warrant that is alleged to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons

    The complainant did not identify the false information contained in the reports or why the information was false. Rather, the plaintiffs presented nothing but concluding statements about false evidence, statements and reports. The plaintiff has therefore failed to state facts which show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly made false statements or omissions in drawing up the arrest warrant and that the false information was necessary to find probable cause. intentional misconduct, the plaintiffs did not specifically point out the part of the warrant declaration which they claimed was false or included any allegation of supporting reasons as to why it was false or why the defendant knew it. The plaintiffs' final allegations were insufficient to prove an unconstitutional decision because they did not claim facts that show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly made false statements or omissions in making the arrest warrant and that the false statements were necessary to find probable cause.

    L. states that an arresting official is obliged to carry out a reasonable investigation to determine probable cause. When a police officer submits an arrest warrant or requests an arrest warrant, a police officer must not turn a blind eye to facts that would help clarify the circumstances surrounding an arrest. An officer does not have to "take" every possible step. . . at any cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. " [ Williams v. City of Homestead, Fla. 206 Fed.Appx. 886, 888 (11th ed. 2006)]. And not "every failure of an official to discover" easily discoverable facts "violates the fourth addendum." [ Washington v. Rivera 939 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2019)] Officials may not conduct an investigation in a biased manner, choose not to obtain easily detectable facts or choose to ignore information provided

    The appellant alleges that State Farm provided the defendant with a statement which was the basis of their indictment. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was required to verify the information provided by State Farm and that they did not conduct any reasonable investigative proceedings that would have acquitted the plaintiffs.

    indicates that their trust was unreasonable.

    The actual allegations in the complaint do not show that there are no probable cause. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the defendants Don Allen and the Georgia Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioners.


    © 2022 – Barry Zalma

    Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his internship to an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, handling of insurance claims, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders.

    He also acts as an arbitrator or media for insurance-related disputes. . He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as a lawyer for insurance coverage and claims management and more than 54 years in the insurance industry.

    Subscribe to "Zalma on Insurance" at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe and "Excellence in Claims Handling "at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

    You can contact Mr. Zalma at https://www.zalma.com, https: //www,claimschool.com, zalma@claimschool.com and zalma@zalma.com. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.

    The podcast "Zalma On Insurance" may be of interest at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; you can follow Zalma on Twitter at; you should watch Barry Zalma's videos on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; or videos at https://rumble.com/zalma. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claimslibrary/ The last two issues of ZIFL can be found at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance- fraud- letter-2 /


    Source link