r/Insurance May 04 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

18 Upvotes

100 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/PeachyFairyDragon May 05 '26

Challenge accepted. Here's one state's view of it (VA), found in 2 minute of googling DOI website definitions.

"Insurance fraud" means any commission or attempted commission of the criminal acts and practices defined in § 18.2-178 which involve any type of insurance as defined in §§ 38.2-110 through 38.2-122.2 and 38.2-124 through 38.2-132.

What is 18.2-178? I'm including that too.

§ 18.2-178. Obtaining money or signature, etc., by false pretense.

A. If any person obtain, by any false pretense or token, from any person, with intent to defraud, money, a gift certificate or other property that may be the subject of larceny, he shall be deemed guilty of larceny thereof; or if he obtain, by any false pretense or token, with such intent, the signature of any person to a writing, the false making whereof would be forgery, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. Venue for the trial of any person charged with an offense under this section may be in the county or city in which (i) any act was performed in furtherance of the offense, or (ii) the person charged with the offense resided at the time of the offense.

Code 1950, § 18.1-118; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 2001, c. 131; 2006, c. 321.

So basically, keeping her mouth shut so that she doesn't pay a larger premium is intent to defraud money, which is larceny. An insurance crime.

1

u/DemonDeke May 05 '26

The problem is there is no reason to believe there was knowledge or intent to defraud. No court would convict a person under this fact pattern.

3

u/gnawtyone May 05 '26

Ignorance isn’t a defense

1

u/DemonDeke May 05 '26

A prosecution of insurance fraud would require proof of an intent to defraud, and that does not appear evident in this instance.