A California woman is suing her dentist's insurer under federal racketeering law, alleging it spent years trying to corrupt her malpractice case.
Chuy Skaggs alleges The Dentists Insurance Company did far more than defend the dentist she sued. The claims appear in a complaint filed June 24, 2026 in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
Skaggs sued her dentist in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2021, saying a dental procedure left her with a serious infection, a cardiac event, multiple strokes and permanent disability. TDIC, the dentist's professional liability carrier, ran that defense. The complaint alleges the insurer and a claims adjuster crossed the line from defending a claim to sabotaging a trial.
At the heart of the filing is Skaggs's causation expert, a cardiologist described as her only witness who could tie the dental work to her injuries. According to the complaint, a figure it calls the "Insurance Representative" reached the expert days before trial and urged her to skip her in-person testimony, telling her to claim there had been an "unreported crash of a large jet airplane at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois." The filing says that was false - no such crash happened - and that the goal was to force a remote appearance that could be struck on technical grounds.
When that failed, the complaint says, the representative told the expert to hold back her sworn opinions and testify only that she was "a cardiologist only," and warned that the judge would strike her testimony through the clerk if she said more. The filing adds that the expert was later told to carry notes into court and falsely claim the plaintiff's lawyer had written them. It also alleges the dentist watched the expert at her hotel each morning and that a stranger told her not to testify. The expert's testimony was struck, the complaint says, and the trial ended in a mistrial.
For claims professionals, the sharpest allegation is about money and data. The complaint says defense counsel disclosed on February 4, 2026 that TDIC had obtained Skaggs's confidential bank account information and could see she was "receiving income." Skaggs says she never authorized access, no subpoena was issued and no court approved it. When her lawyer asked how the insurer got the records, the filing says counsel invoked "attorney work product and attorney client privilege" and declined to explain. Skaggs alleges the access broke the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California's Financial Information Privacy Act, and that the data was meant to push a "below-value settlement."
The complaint also points to TDIC's ownership. It alleges the carrier is a captive insurer owned, through a holding company, by the California Dental Association, and that it "paid dividends to CDAHCI totaling approximately $39.4 million during the period 2017 through 2021." That structure, Skaggs argues, gave TDIC a financial reason to defeat a verdict she estimates would top $10,000,000.
Reinsurers feature as well. Citing a California Department of Insurance examination report, the complaint lists TDIC's excess-of-loss panel as of December 31, 2021: Hannover Ruck SE (25%), Scor Reinsurance Company (20%), Partner Reinsurance Company (20%), Markel Global Reinsurance Company (15%), Berkley Insurance Company (12.5%) and Lloyd's Underwriters (7.5%). It cites First Layer coverage of "$4 million excess of $1 million each loss event" and Second-Layer coverage of "$5 million excess of $5 million each loss event." Skaggs wants a court declaration that excess coverage has been triggered, and names unidentified reinsurers and excess insurers as Doe defendants.
In all, Skaggs brings nine causes of action, including civil RICO, and seeks treble damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. She says her wasted legal costs alone exceed "eight million dollars."
One clarification on who is named: the only defendants in this federal case are TDIC, a claims adjuster and unidentified Doe defendants. The dentist, defense counsel, a dental association executive and the court staff mentioned in the filing are described as part of the alleged scheme but are not defendants in this action.
These are allegations, and none has been tested or proven. The underlying malpractice case ended in mistrial, with no final judgment, and no court has ruled on the claims in this complaint.
