New York AG Investigation into Trump Organization Insurance Practices: Inflated Assets in Applications to Insurers
Tier 2Merged into Civil Fraud Case2019-02-27 to 2024-02-16
Factual Summary
In February 2019, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress that Donald Trump had routinely inflated the value of his assets when seeking favorable insurance terms. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked Cohen directly whether Trump had ever presented inflated assets to an insurance company. Cohen responded that Trump "inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed amongst the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes."
Cohen's testimony triggered a separate investigative track. In March 2019, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued a subpoena to Aon, the Trump Organization's longtime insurance broker, seeking documents related to the organization's insurance applications and representations.
The investigation focused on whether the Trump Organization submitted false financial information to insurance companies to obtain better coverage terms and lower premiums. Specific areas of concern included surety bond programs with Zurich North America and directors-and-officers liability policies from Everest National and Tokio Marine HCC. The Trump Organization's financial statements included valuations of golf courses that incorporated a substantial brand premium. Under Zurich's underwriting guidelines, intangible assets such as brand value were required to be excluded from financial representations. Had the Trump Organization disclosed the brand premium, Zurich would have reduced the valuation and potentially adjusted the terms of coverage.
New York Attorney General Letitia James incorporated the insurance fraud allegations into the broader civil fraud lawsuit filed against Trump and the Trump Organization on September 21, 2022. The suit charged Trump with violations of New York's Executive Law Section 63(12) and also alleged insurance fraud under state laws prohibiting the submission of false information in applications for commercial insurance.
James also referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service for potential criminal investigation. As of public reporting, no federal criminal charges resulted from that referral.
On February 16, 2024, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled in the civil case that Trump and the Trump Organization had engaged in persistent fraud, including in their representations to insurers.
Primary Sources
1. Michael Cohen congressional testimony, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 27, 2019
2. New York Department of Financial Services subpoena to Aon, March 2019, reported by Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/03/05/519711.htm
3. New York Attorney General complaint, People v. Trump, Index No. 452564/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed September 21, 2022: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/attorney-general-james-sues-donald-trump-years-financial-fraud
4. Decision and Order, People v. Trump, February 16, 2024
Corroborating Sources
1. ABC News: "Trump Organization's insurance policies under investigation in New York," March 2019
2. Insurance Journal: "New York AG's Financial Fraud Suit Against Trump Details Insurance Scenarios," September 2022
3. Carrier Management: "Trump Defrauded Insurers, New York AG's Lawsuit Says," September 2022
Counterarguments and Context
The Trump Organization argued that its financial statements were prepared with the involvement of professional accountants and that the valuations reflected reasonable business judgment. Trump's legal team maintained that insurers and banks were sophisticated parties capable of conducting their own due diligence and that no insurer suffered actual losses. The insurance fraud allegations were not tried as a standalone case but were folded into the broader civil fraud proceeding, which found persistent fraud but did not result in a separate insurance fraud conviction.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 2 because a formal government investigation was opened, regulatory subpoenas were issued, and the findings were incorporated into a civil lawsuit that resulted in a judicial finding of fraud. The insurance fraud component is documented separately from the broader civil fraud case (FRAUD-001) because it originated from a distinct investigative trigger (Cohen's congressional testimony) and involved a separate regulatory body (the Department of Financial Services). The criminal referral to federal prosecutors did not result in charges, and no standalone insurance fraud proceeding was pursued.