« Back to BG&S in the News

New York Jurors Were Not Born Yesterday
By: Jeffrey S. Siegel, Esq.

FOR THE DEFENSE

New York Jurors Were Not Born Yesterday

By: Jeffrey S. Siegel, Esq.
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP
Melville, New York


Two separate no-fault jury trials that were brought in two different counties both of which resulted in a finding for the defendant provide illustrative examples of how jurors can spot a fraud faster than many courts do. In both cases, the defense alleged that the “accidents” were staged events and are therefore not covered by the insurance policy.

In the first case, ALBM Medical Diagnostic, P.C. a/a/o Ziashia Richardson and Christopher Kelly v. Utica Mutual Insurance brought in Richmond County Civil Court, I subpoenaed the driver of the insured vehicle, a Mr. Labhal Jalloh, to testify on behalf of the defense.

Under direct examination Mr. Jalloh testified that he met with his friend (who lent him his vehicle) on the date of the accident in order for him to drive to Fulton Street in Brooklyn so that he could eat at a particular African restaurant. He further testified that there were two other individuals with his friend and they asked him for a ride as well. One of the individuals was seated in the front seat and the other was in the back seat. While he was waiting to park the vehicle at the restaurant, he noted that the individual in the back seat was on the cellular phone and Mr. Jalloh heard him say, “here now”. At that point, the passenger in the back seat also asked Mr. Jalloh to honk the horn a few times. After doing so, he noted that the passenger in the front seat had apparently braced himself. Within a few seconds, there was an impact to the rear of the vehicle.

Additionally, Mr. Jalloh testified that just before impact he heard a noise that sounded like “voooooooo”. Inasmuch as Mr. Jalloh was testifying with the aid of an interpreter, he was asked on cross examination what would make such a sound. Mr. Jalloh stated “A car that was going to hit me on purpose!” [You can’t make this stuff up!]

After lengthy closing arguments by both the plaintiff’s counsel and the undersigned, the jury began their deliberations. In very short order the jury returned with the unanimous verdict in favor of the defense.

In another no-fault trial in Civil Court New York County, Delta Diagnostic a/a/o Fluery v. State Farm and Delta Diagnostic a/a/o St. Louis v. State Farm were consolidated for trial inasmuch as they arose from the same accident. It was State Farm’s position based upon an investigation that the accident in question was a fraudulent or staged loss. However, prior to trial the plaintiff filed motions seeking to preclude the defense from offering into evidence the executed and notarized EUO testimony of Antoinette St. Louis and the recorded statement of our named insured Wallace Louis. These items were significant for the defense as Wallace Louis indicated in his recorded statement that while he did loan his vehicle to his friend that day, he did not know either of the alleged passengers Fluery and St. Louis. However, Antoinette St. Louis testified in her EUO that not only did she know Wallace Louis, but she also stated that he was in the front passenger seat at the time of the accident. Despite a lengthy trial brief which we offered in support of the admissibility of these documents, the Judge ruled that the EUO testimony and recorded statement was hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

Although we did subpoena the two assignors as well as the named insured Wallace Louis, no one appeared. The judge did not allow a missing witness charges inasmuch as they were not in the control of the plaintiff. However, he did allow the defense to comment on their failure to appear during summation.

The only witness to testify on behalf of the defense was State Farm’s SIU investigator. She testified as to all the aspects of the investigation performed by the carrier. Essentially she testified that the claims were denied based upon multiple accidents involving the named insured (4 between 1994-97); there were additional claims from the same address despite the fact that those individuals did not reside there; Jean Roland Fleury’s failed to appear for an EUO; and there were inconsistencies in the statements of those involved (although the investigator was unable to testify as to what they specifically were based upon the Court’s prior rulings).

Shortly after summations the jury returned with a unanimous verdict for the defendant.

Editors Note: Jeffrey S. Siegel is a graduate of the University of Dayton, School of Law and is a partner at the law firm of Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, located in Melville, New York.

« Back to BG&S in the News