To Succeed at Arson-for-Profit Takes Skill and Intelligence
To successfully commit an arson-for-profit it is necessary to buy sufficient insurance, set a fire to occur when the arsonist has an alibi, leave no evidence of an intentionally set fire, and make a reasonable claim based upon the property actually destroyed. In State of Ohio v. Rickey Lamb, Jr., Court of Appeals No. F-17-002, 2018 Ohio 3089, Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Sixth Appellate District Fulton County (August 3, 2018) Ricky Lamb, Jr. proved he did not have the ability to fulfill the needs of a successful arson-for-profit.
Rickey T. Lamb, Jr., was found guilty of aggravated arson, insurance fraud, grand theft, communications fraud, and falsification in a theft. He appealed to the appellate court to avoid jail.
Aaron and Sarah Klopfenstein purchased a home at 104 Ash Street, Lyons, Fulton County, Ohio, as an investment property (the “Ash Street home”). On August 30, 2014, Lamb and his wife, Desteny Lamb, entered into a one-year lease agreement for the Ash Street home.
On December 22, 2014, Mr. Klopfenstein received a text message from Lamb indicating that the home’s utility room “smelled like natural gas.” Lamb indicated that he hired a “gas contractor” to check for leaks, but the contractor could not find any. So, they “aired out” the utility room. Mr. Klopfenstein offered to have his plumbing and heating contractor check for a leak, but Lamb indicated that the visit was not necessary; Lamb had purchased a “detector” and felt “safe.” At trial, Mr. Klopfenstein testified that the Lambs never asserted any other complaints about the condition of the Ash Street home.
The Man who Called 911
Scott Westbrook is the general manager of Aarons Sales and Lease, a rent-to-own company located in Wauseon, Ohio. On January 3, 2015, at approximately 5:20 p.m., Mr. Westbrook was driving north toward Lyons on County Road 10-3 when he noticed a red or maroon SUV driving recklessly in a southerly direction. He was approximately one mile outside of the Lyons city limits. When he arrived in Lyons moments later, Mr. Westbrook observed “flames coming out of the side of [a] house.” It was Lamb’s Ash Street home. Mr. Westbrook grabbed his phone and called 911.
News of the Fire and the Lambs Reaction to It
When the Lambs arrived at the house on the day of the fire, Lamb told firefighters that he had $20,000 in a metal box on the second floor in or near a dresser. Lamb also told firefighters that he had a number of firearms in the Ash Street home. Once the fire was under control, two firefighters searched the upstairs bedroom for Lamb’s metal box. They were unable to locate it.
Lamb’s Interactions with a Nationwide Insurance Adjustor
Tricia Huberty is employed as an adjustor at Nationwide Insurance. During an in-person interview, Lamb informed Ms. Huberty that, as a self-employed contractor, he made $82,000 in 2013 and $77,000 in 2014. He also informed Ms. Huberty that his wife and children were receiving Medicaid and “food stamps” and failed to mention that he earned too much to qualify for Medicaid.
Ms. Huberty read to the jury the extensive list of household and personal items the Lamb family claimed to have lost in the fire. The list included, $29,163 worth of Hallmark cards; $2,110 worth of DVDs; a $2,499 sectional sofa; a $2,000 Rolex; $3,000 worth of school books; a $6,000 camera; a $1,200 pressure washer; a $799 fridge; a $499 stove; a $200 washer; a $200 dryer; a $400 kayak; a $2,700 Vera Wang wedding dress; numerous guns; a $5,599 ring; $20,000 cash; and numerous other items. Lamb’s claimed losses totaled $110,000.
Shortly after the in-person interview, Ms. Huberty obtained a credit report and discovered that the Lambs had recently gone through bankruptcy. She also discovered that the fire occurred less than six months after the policy’s effective date. The presence of these indicators required Ms. Huberty to forward the file to Nationwide’s Special Investigative Unit.
Nationwide’s Special Investigative Unit
Christopher Lease is a special investigator for Nationwide’s Special Investigative Unit. Mr. Lease conducted two interviews with Lamb and attended Lamb’s examination under oath. All three events were recorded and transcribed.
During the examination, Lamb stated that he never informed Mr. Klopfenstein about the problems he was having with the breakers. He insisted that his rent had been paid through April 2015.
Robert Moody’s Investigation
Robert Moody is a fire investigator employed by Nederveld Engineering. He was retained by Nationwide Insurance, to conduct an “origin and cause” investigation at the Ash Street home.
After interviewing Lamb Mr. Moody began a physical examination of both the inside and the outside of the fire-damaged structure. Mr. Moody testified that they found what appeared to be remnants from a space heater and a single magazine to a small caliber hand gun. When Mr. Moody went to the upstairs bedroom, he found no evidence of the $20,000 in cash and no evidence of any other guns. The bedroom contents had suffered soot damage, most of the personal effects were not damaged by flame and were all readily identifiable.
The jury convicted Lamb on all but one count charged. At the sentencing hearing, Lamb was ordered to serve a term of six years in prison on Count 2, eleven months in prison on Count 4, eleven months in prison on Count 5, eleven months in prison on Count 6, and eleven months in prison on Count 7. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court also ordered Lamb to pay $8,381.07 in restitution to the State Fire Marshall’s Office and $18,500 in restitution to Nationwide Insurance.
One is qualified as an expert witness so as to properly provide expert testimony if the testimony provided exceeds the knowledge or experience possessed by a layperson, possesses specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training and education regarding the subject matter, and the testimony is based upon reliable specialized information.
Robert Moody is a fire investigator employed by Nederveld Engineering. Mr. Moody was qualified to testify as an expert fire investigator because of his specialized knowledge, skill, and experience regarding the subject matter.
It is clear that the experience and training of the expert witnesses who testified qualify them to testify as expert witnesses at trial. Each testified extensively as to their training and experience. Each were cross-examined on their opinions, methods, and observations.
The assumptions the arson investigator made when categorizing the fire as “incendiary” were based on his experience as a fire investigator and unique facts in the record. There is evidence that Lamb left his home no more than 20 minutes before a driver passing through town called 911 to report the fire. Also, a copy of Lamb’s phone bill was presented to the jury. The phone bill shows that calls were made between Lamb and his wife at the same time the two of them—according to Lamb’s timeline—were traveling to Toledo in the same vehicle
There was no direct evidence that Lamb intentionally started the fire. However, that deficiency does not preclude an arson conviction. The courts have consistently noted that arson prosecutions rely heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Much of the evidence produced at trial focused on the fraudulent insurance claim Lamb submitted to Nationwide Insurance. The state presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of Lamb’s guilt on the aggravated arson charge.
Lamb made numerous inconsistent statements to investigators on a number of topics. Lamb also made conflicting statements to others about when he discovered and to what extent he believed the fire was covered by insurance. Furthermore, Lamb’s statements about when he discovered and reported the cracks in the gas line were inconsistent with his wife’s testimony about when the cracks were discovered and reported.
It is clear from the evidence that Lamb had both a motive and an opportunity to start the fire. Lamb and his wife were experiencing financial difficulties. In 2013, Lamb and his wife filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. At the time of the fire, Lamb’s wife and children were receiving public assistance. Just days before the fire, Lamb indicated he would be late in making his $700 rent payment for January 2015 although he claimed he had $20,000 in cash in the house. Lamb’s tenant insurance went into effect 64 days before the fire that destroyed the Ash Street home. Lamb’s wife testified that they purposely inflated the replacement value of their possessions.
A reasonable fact finder could have inferred, and found beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lamb set the fire that destroyed the Ash Street home. This is not the exceptional case in which the jury lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Lamb simply lacked the skill to succeed at a complex fraud scheme. He did not have the assets to support his claimed earnings and claimed loss because of the bankruptcy less than two years before the fire, he claimed a Rolex that would have reasonably gone to the bankruptcy trustee. He was the last at the house and did a fairly sloppy job of setting the fire, even leaving a match near the point of origin and claiming loss of cash from a room not damaged by the fire. He belongs in jail since his actions could have killed or injured neighbors or firefighters if a passer-by had not reported the fire shortly after it started.
© 2018 – Barry Zalma
This article, and all of the blog posts on this site, digest and summarize cases published by courts of the various states and the United States. The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, were condensed for ease of reading, and convey the opinions of the author regarding each case.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 50 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.
Books from Full Court Press
Insurance Law Deskbook: Learn the insurance basics that are essential to every civil practitioner. The Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, state appellate courts, and foreign courts that have molded the American insurance law, as well as vital explanatory chapters, historical context, form letters, and more.
California Insurance Law Deskbook: California has long led the way when it comes to insurance jurisprudence in the United States, and few know more about California insurance law than Barry Zalma. The California Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. Similar to Barry Zalma’s general Insurance Law Deskbook, this title focuses on the state where the author has long resided and practiced as an expert in California law. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts, as well as vital explanatory chapters and historical context.
Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook: Understand the relationship between insurance, the tort of bad faith, and why punitive damages are awarded to punish insurers. Previously, a person suing an insurance company in the United States could only recover contract damages, but when the tort of bad faith was created by the courts contract law was enormously affected, allowing insureds to sue insurers for both contract and tort damages, including punitive damages. Read a thoughtful analysis of how punitive damages apply in the United States to insurance bad faith suits, and why some states allow judges and juries to award punitive damages against insurers in civil litigation.
Mr. Zalma’s books available as Kindle books or paperbacks at Amazon.com can be reached at http://zalma.com/zalma-books/
Mr. Zalma’s reports can be found on Tumbler at https://www.tumblr.com/search/bzalma on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/barry.zalma and you can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.