Fraudulent Insurance Claim

[BGViolette]

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Minnesota

In June, 2006, my now ex-husband secretly filed a fraudulent homeowners insurance claim naming me as the perp. of alleged property damages. We were still married at the time and he had locked me out for 3 weeks. I broke into my own house to retrieve some personal life necessities after the police "dropped" my request for assistance and failed to show up.

Then, in March, 2009, the insurance company sued me. We settled the claim in December 2008 after bad facts came to light (he lied and lied.) I paid them $0, but now I can't sue them for not properly investigating the claim. As a result of discovery, I gained enough physical evidence to interest the police and a criminal investigation is ongoing.

This was excruciating for me to endure. I defended myself Pro Se because I couldn't afford an attorney. Despite the ongoing criminal investigation, the insurance company doesn't seem to care to prosecute him. I consulted with an attorney and was told that since I was not defrauded, I cannot sue him in civil court. How can this be true? He knew I would be wrongfully sued. SOL for defamation in my state is 2 years and the statute is not tolled just because I didn't find out what he said until September 2008.

Q1: Can I set the start date for the SOL of defamation when the lawsuit finally settled in Dec. 2008? Argue: he supported these statements throughout the lawsuit (he participated as a witness/subroger.)

Q: Did I recieve bad advice? Can I sue him for Insurance Fraud after all? Argue: Fraud is a tort so injury should flow to all victims, intended or not.

[Mr. Knowitall]

As your lawyer told you, the victim of your ex's fraudulent insurance claim was his insurance company. You assume your husband knew you would be sued; I expect that it's your attorney's belief that it would be difficult to impossible to prove that assumption in court. If you need further clarification, talk to your lawyer.

If the statute of limitations for defamation is tolled until you knew or reasonably should have known of false statements made about you, then the relevant date would be when you knew or reasonably should have known about the statements. Not several months later when you resolved a different lawsuit. Statements made in court or in court documents are not ordinarily actionable as defamation.

If you want clarification of your lawyer's advice and counsel, your best bet is to have a more detailed discussion of your case with your lawyer. If you believe your lawyer is wrong, have your case reviewed by another lawyer in your state before the statute of limitations runs. If you think your lawyer is wrong but do nothing until your case expires, you should not expect to have any recourse against your lawyer. (Usually the letter from a lawyer declining litigation will caution you of the statute of limitations and remind you of your ability to have your case reviewed by another firm.)

[KeyWestDan]

I have not heard of the tort of defamation SOL being tolled. It happens in medical cases as there is statutory and case law support.

I have argued for the tolling of SOL on false arrest and false imprisonment torts (as the evidence of the facts did not come out until later) and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals shot me down.

It would be interesting if anyone in any state has any case law on SOL being tolled in a defamation case.

Also keep in mind that damages in defamation are in large measure based on the number of people it was communicated to, so it doesn't sound like you would get much in damages that way.

[BGViolette]

Mr. Knowitall,

I appreciate your attention to my question. I do not have a lawyer. I consulted with a lawyer but he would not take my case. He said I have no case. Respectfully, I disagree with his conclusion. My ex made fraudulent statements and forged a court record to get me sued, and I did in fact get sued. He did this subject to a non-waiver agreement, indicating he at least understood I could be sued. I further believe that his defamatory statements were not privileged statements because he was an adversary to his insurer at the time he made them.

Unlike fraud claims, my state does not toll defamation just because I did not know about it. However, my ex participated in the lawsuit as a potential witness. Conversations with his insurer after the lawsuit commenced, I assume, are privileged, so I cannot know if he continued to expressly repeat his false statements. I think it can be implied via circumstance? I'm not trying to be stubborn. I'm trying to find a convincing argument to bring this forward.

Also, I believe that, under a general theory of tort law, mine is an exception to caselaw rule stating that I am not the victim of his insurance fraud. To my knowlege, no MN statute prohibits me from claiming victim status. Fraud is typically an economic harm, which differentiates it from other kinds of intentional torts. My ex did a multitude of harassing things in addition to this one, which arguably support his malicious intent to cause more than mere economic harm to me. Again, not being stubborn. Just trying to find the best way to frame this.

I am having this same problem with the police. There seems to be no MN criminal caselaw prohibiting me from being a "victim" and no statutory law precluding my status as a victim. It's just such an exception to the general way things go. I need to make a case for the police. Unfortunately I have found NOTHING like my case aside from isolated blogs authored by a few disgruntled victims like myself. The police are discussing a forgery charge if his insurer decides not to press charges, but that's nothing compared to what he did to me.

My ex's malicious activity has been ongoing for the past several years and it needs to stop now. I will serve him pro se this week regardless. I will argue defamation, fraud on the court (MTA and perjury under oath at a hearing by expressly concealing this claim,) insurance fraud, and everything else he did to me. I will argue my position on the insurance fraud piece, though it seems fragile. I have to do this. I cannot continue to function as his victim.

From a larger point of view, what if I had just buckled when the insurance company sued me instead of standing up for myself? This is not justice. How many people just roll over and pay money they don't owe because they don't know what else to do? Divorce is horrible and messy. People do really mean things to each other. I don't think my case is so rare. Just rarely reported.

I can't find a lawyer who will even just talk to me without asking for hundreds of dollars in consultation fees, and so I greatly appreciate your help and advice as I stumble through this complex court system. Your generosity is not at all lost on me. Thank you.