قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Insurance companies sued for malicious prosecution after fraud case rejected | Property Insurance Law Team Blog

Insurance companies sued for malicious prosecution after fraud case rejected | Property Insurance Law Team Blog



The same contractor who brought the RICO action against insurers who allegedly “zeroed” insurance claims before conducting investigations has filed a malicious charge against a law firm representing an insurer alleging fraud and misleading information committed by the contractor.1 The introduction to the malicious prosecution process that was filed this month says:

This is a case involving a concerted and calculated effort by Defendant – a law firm and one of its affiliates – to file a meaningless lawsuit … to inflict financial and emotional damage on the plaintiff and destroy their business. This case also includes a plan by the defendants to question claims for damages on property by all necessary means …

Part of the defendant̵

7;s legal practice is to defend insurance companies in property damage cases. Instead of being satisfied with their insurance defense practices representing carriers when homeowners and their litigants initiate litigation due to delay, underpayment or non-payment of claims, defendants went further by falsely accusing the plaintiff of participating in an insurance fraud program.

Respondents used American Capital Assurance Corp. (‘AmCap’) as the plaintiff (an insurer now bankrupt) for wrongly accusing the plaintiff of criminal acts and other offenses. The aim was not only to prevent the plaintiffs from settling claims, but to destroy the plaintiffs, their activities, and to obtain more advantageous damages on behalf of AmCap and other insurers represented by the defendants.

The defendants did not bring the State Court’s action in any material respect and voluntarily dismissed it over a year after it was first brought. During that time, the defendant used State Court Action for unlawful purposes, which aimed to harm the plaintiff’s companies and their ability to be paid for work performed. The plaintiffs’ profits decreased significantly, which was the desired cooling effect that the defendant intended to achieve.

As I say, in any case, the statements of a trial are only statements. Proving the truth of these accusations is a completely different matter. Furthermore, many readers will note that the plaintiff in the previous case, American Capital, suffered significant financial problems and may not have been able to finance or financially continue with the previous lawsuit, which essentially claimed that the price of insurance claims would be reduced. In other words, it could not pay to prove whether the lawsuit was meritorious or not. The law firm that represents American Capital also has extensive experience and a reputable law firm. The degree of truthfulness of the previous lawsuits about price reductions will again be in question, as will the motives for arousing the previous lawsuit.

Many of the current plaintiffs have disclosed facts about the insurance industry’s claims practice, which are noted in Zero Hurricane Claims and Cheating Claim Methods – Why Do Our Florida Politicians Ignore These Ongoing Injury Problems and Seemingly Protect Cheating Insurance Companies? They are also involved in other “let me tell you the rest of the story”, as mentioned in The RICO process against United Property & Casuality changed with more accusations. The current trial will be one to look at given the parties involved and the totality of the allegations.

In general, and only related to the previous cases because accusations of price reductions were raised, most business owners can take what they want in the United States. People do not have to pay what is required. Yet real estate insurance defense attorneys are often “quick to pull” to claim fraud against their clients whenever a restoration contractor charges more than what the insurer considers “fair.” There are many reasons for this, including that they seem to be “macho lawyers” for their insurance clients. Everyone who was an insurance company lawyer will tell you about this and know exactly what I mean – for one way to get insurance company customers in the insurance defense industry is to appear as the alpha “dog on a leash” lawyer against alleged insurance fraud. Seven years ago, I noticed that CBS News paid attention to this Insurance company lawyers called “dogs on a leash”.

My personal opinion is that the insurance companies and their agents often incorrectly claim insurance fraud about the amount requested. This is a common tactic because everyone is against insurance fraud. I discussed this and cases that say this is wrong Insurance company attorneys often wrongly claim that a fraud occurs when the parties only have different opinions:

A recent case in Florida1 has a long discussion of cases where changed valuations of the insured are then used by smart insurance company attorneys to claim that a fraud after the loss has occurred. This is now a common practice in litigation throughout the country as policyholders, public adjusters and contractors make different estimates of the loss and have different views on what the extent of the loss should be.

These cases are not where a policyholder paid a certain amount for a complete and satisfactory exchange of property and then submitted amended invoices or intentionally incorrectly reported what actually occurred. It also does not include the situation where a policyholder intentionally changes an estimate or receives an invoice to make it deliberately higher in order to get “leverage” with the insurance company to negotiate the loss amount. This type of intentional case will be noted on Barry Zalma’s blog about insurance fraud.

There is rarely an exact price for loss for damaged real estate or personal property. A reasonable amount of loss is a range, and it can vary quite a bit. When the scope and methods of how to repair or replace something disagree, the intervals can be quite significant and still be good opinions and opinions about the size of a loss. So just looking at numbers and differences is often not an indicator of intentional fraud by either the policyholder or the insurer.

The day that insurance companies and restoration contractors stop fighting over one side offering to pay way too little and tearing everyone away while the other side asking for too much will not happen during our lifetime. Still, it creates a great deal of debate in the field of adjustment, courtrooms and conferences on property insurance, where many stand up and pontificate on the subject for one reason or another.

Today’s thoughts

Nothing good ever happens by itself – it is achieved through striving, even if it sometimes costs a high price.
—Antonio Munoz Molina
________________________________
1 SRF Services, LLC, v. Zinober, Diana & MonteverdeNo. 22000511CAAXMX (Fla. Cir. Ct. (Martin Co.) Complaint filed June 13, 2022).


Source link