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 watch the video at https://youtu.be/mwtG3NGeOvw and at https://rumble.com/vnqr76-zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-october-15-2021.html,  Criminal political suit to pull out for more than six years
The court finally ended with an inconsistent level of overexposure
US District Judge Gary R. Brown faced a legal dispute which, perhaps because the defendant was a criminal, continued for several years without a final disposition. I Principal Life Insurance Company v. Jason P. Brand, No. CV 15-CV-3804, United States District Court, E.D. The New York (September 29, 2021) case was reduced to seven years in disputes that seemed relatively uncomplicated:
- Defendant Brand received a disability policy in early 2012 from Plaintiff Principal Life, after being less than forthcoming about his health history.
- In June 2014 – prior to the filing of the defendant's disability claim on November 14, 2014 – the New York State Attorney General's office raided the defendant's office and confiscated his computers and physical files, leading to prosecution on October 16, 2014. by the defendant. and his company, DASO Development Corp. and Narco Freedom, Inc., for first-degree insurance fraud and second-degree felony, allegations that defendant would plead guilty to.
- The defendant filed a disability claim based on anxiety;
- Principal Life, for its part, acted swiftly and repealed the policy and
- filed a declaratory relief measure.
Proactive insurer must fight to renew judgment Against Convicted Fraudster
Insurer's $ 7,870,557.89 judgment against fraudsters stands
The insurer can collect 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 renewal of a standard judgment from 2013 and the underlying bankruptcy judgment.
In 2003, the Supreme Court imposed 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 the notice of 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 ordinary judgment under Civil Procedure Act 473, Subsection (d). The district court denied the motion, and ended Mirsky's motion to suspend the renewal of the sentence was premature and Mirsky failed to meet its burden of showing that the judgment of annulment was invalid.
ClaimSchool, Inc. – Insurance Education
Insurance Training by Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma presents what your insurance organization needs.