The insurer may collect on standard judgment against fraud
I 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) Alex Semyon Mirsky appealed against the Supreme Court's rejection of a motion to leave a 2013 renewal of a standard judgment and the underlying standard judgment.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in a standard judgment of over $ 7.8 million against Mirsky. The Interinsurance Exchange for the Automobile Club of Southern California (Interinsurance Exchange) renewed the ruling in 2013, and in 2018 it sent notice of the renewal to Mirsky at an address that the Interinsurance Exchange claimed was Mirsky's last known address. Mirsky filed a motion to set aside the renewal of the judgment, or, alternatively, to set aside the judgment on the due date under Civil Procedure Act 473, Subsection (d). The district court denied the motion, ending Mirsky's motion to suspend the renewal of the sentence was premature, and Mirsky failed to cover his burden to show that the default judgment was invalid.
The Criminal Measures for Fraud and Conspiracy  Mirsky was charged in an information filed in federal court with three cases of postal fraud and conspiracy "to defraud and to obtain money and property from various insurance companies through false and fraudulent allegations, petitions and promises. " Mirsky allegedly invested in a law firm in Texas and used the office to prepare and file fraudulent claims for medical and property damages from persons who participated in staged or manufactured car accidents.
Mirsky was accused of a serious complaint alleging that Mirsky committed insurance fraud. Mirsky formed a negotiated basis for liability for the allegations in federal and state action. Mirsky was sentenced to only five years of formal probation on condition that he serve one year in state prison (to run concurrently with his federal prison sentence) and to pay $ 20,000 in damages. On July 12, 1999, the federal court sentenced Mirsky to 21 months in prison.
Civil Action and Default Judaism
The Interinsurance Exchange brought a receipt action on behalf of the State of California against Mirsky and 26 other defendants for violating the Anti-Fraud Act. The complaint alleged that the ring knowingly and intentionally caused approximately 475 alleged car collisions to be reported to The Exchange as incidents that caused bodily injury. These collisions involved approximately 855 separate claims. The Interinsurance Exchange sought damages amounting to three times the amount of each defendant's claim for damages, plus a $ 10,000 civil penalty for each violation of California Insurance Code § 1871.1. The Interinsurance Exchange filed a $ 15,674,374.50 claim for damages from Mirsky.
Mirsky did not respond to the complaint. Later, the Interinsurance Exchange filed its first amended complaint. Mirsky was served the first amended complaint by mail to the Fuller Avenue address and later the Interinsurance Exchange filed a second amended complaint, which generally contained the same allegations and a request for relief, but it attached 27 exhibits identifying each of the "claims made. to the stock exchange for which one respondent is individually liable to the stock exchange. ”The second amended complaint was also mailed to Mirsky at his Fuller Avenue address. The Supreme Court of Justice entered Mirsky's standard on February 20, 2001. Mirsky, representing herself, filed and served with the Interinsurance Exchange on an application for an extension of the delay period.
Introduction of standard judgment
Kuhl) Interinsurance Exchange request for a bankruptcy judgment against Mirsky and others not present at the hearing. On February 20, the court sentenced Mirsky to a standard sentence of $ 7,131,333.99 in fines under Section 1871.7 of the Code, plus legal fees of $ 739,223.90, for a total of $ 7,870,557.89. The Interinsurance Exchange notified Mirsky of a first-instance court order at his Fuller Avenue address.
Judge-debtor inquiry by Mirsky
On 16 August 2018, the Supreme Court ordered Mirsky to appear for a judgment debtor inquiry. on October 19th. Eventually, Mirsky appeared in court for his investigation. The district court, over Mirsky's objection, ordered the investigation to proceed. Mirsky invoked its fifth amending privilege against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court rejected Mirsky's request to extend the renewal of the sentence as premature. The District Court denied Mirsky's request and declared
Prior to the 1982 adoption of the Enforcement of Judges Act (§ 680.010 et seq.), The only method by which a court creditor could extend the enforcement period for money was by obtaining a new judgment against the court debt. in an independent document based on the judgment. According to the Act on the Enforcement of Judgments, a monetary judgment is enforceable for ten years from the date it was introduced. The law created a summary procedure for renewal of the judgment by the creditor by submitting an application for renewal to the court clerk before the ten-year period expired.
The renewal process is simple. The debtor bears the burden of proof to, by overriding evidence, prove that he or she is entitled to exemption under section 683.170.
It is common ground that the renewal of the judgment was introduced and a notice was sent to Mirsky. Thus, if the service was correct, Mirsky's application to leave the judgment was renewed under section 683,170 on January 22, 2019 — just over seven months later — early. Motion to revoke renewal of judgment
There is no statutory requirement that the notice of renewal be served on the debtor in order for the renewal to be effective. There is no specified time period within which renewal of the judgment must be notified to the debtor
The District Court did not err in finding that the judgment in the judgment was not invalid and denied Mirsky's proposal to set aside the judgment
After a defendant's standard has been entered, Complaints are changed in substance as opposed to form only, the amendment opens standard, and unless the amended appeal is served on the neglected defendant, no judgment can be rendered in a proper manner on the negligence "" and each judgment is thus invalid.
In this case, the second amended complaint does not increase the damages claimed against Mirsky, does not add or amend an action based on various facts or legal theory or indicates that there are any defenses or reasons to avoid liability that were not already reasonably apparent from the facts stated in the first complaint.
Although the second amended complaint provided further specificity on fraudulent allegations as to what answers In order to provoke the fraud allegation, the unfair business claim was found to be sufficient. And the allegations about Mirsky's management of a ring to commit insurance fraud remained the same. Furthermore, Mirsky knew well from the allegations in the first complaint (and the previous criminal acts) what constituted the alleged fraudulent conduct for which the Interinsurance Exchange claimed damages and penalties. In addition, Mirsky received the second amended complaint and admitted that he had received it. T
The order denying Mirsky's request to suspend the renewal of the judgment or the ordinary judgment is confirmed. The Interinsurance Exchange has the right to reclaim its costs on appeal.
Insurance fraud is estimated to take between $ 80 billion and $ 300 billion from the insurance industry each year. Nobody really knows. Mr Mirsky was a major player in fraudulent insurance schemes and was convicted of fraud related to fraud in both state and federal courts. The Interinsurance Exchange, a major victim of his crime, brought a qui tam lawsuit to a nearly $ 8 million verdict and has increased interest in that verdict since its introduction. As he was in prison, the execution of the sentence was delayed and the court renewed the sentence only to find Mirsky – trying to avoid paying the sentence – fighting in court and the Court of Appeal. The court kept him firmly on the verdict and allowed the Interinsurance Exchange to work to collect the verdict on behalf of the state.
He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance and claims management attorney and more than 54 years in the insurance industry.
He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award. For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurance companies and their indemnity staff to become insurance professionals.
Go to my articles at https://zalma.substack.com, the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma ; Go to Barry Zalma videos at https://www.rumble.com/zalma; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to Insurance Claims Library-https: //zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ T the last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud- letter -2 / podcast now available at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zalma-on-insurance/id1509583809?uo=4