Dave was extremely professional but more importantly I was treated as a person not a case. He always returned calls and emails in a very timely manner. I would definitely recommend Dave to help with legal needs! -Jennifer S.

As someone who never had a lawyer, David made everything as simple as possible. He is very easy to communicate with and provides all the answers and support you will ever need. If I ever need a lawyer again, David will be my first choice to contact. -Andrew

I was falsely accused of something and had an order filed against me. Ben represented me during court and successfully had the order dismissed. He also went above and beyond to make sure it would not show up on my record. – Brittany.

Fraud Convictions

Share

Case: State v. Reuben Eugene Mitchell
Facts: Defendant was convicted of arson and filing a false insurance claim. Defendant appealed, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions.

Appellate Decision: The intermediate court reversed the conviction for filing a false insurance claim because the defendant “legally, and under the policy, did not initiate a claim because he did not file the necessary and required documentation pursuant to the policy, including a proof of loss, in the requisite time period.” Specifically, he did not provide “a detailed list of damaged or destroyed property and that there was no proof that he provided a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days” as required under the terms of the policy.

Judge Williams dissented, writing that the statute broadly criminalizes the presentation of a false claim or proof thereof, and does not require that a defendant actually “adhered to the provisions and niceties of the insurance policy.”

Review Granted: March 27, 2019.

Prediction: Ben agrees with the dissent and thinks the Supreme Court will affirm the conviction. The word “claim” in the fraud statute is meant in a general sense and not as narrowly defined in the actual insurance policy.