I do like a good hyphenated adjective, and this case definitely called for one.

It’s a little surprising (though maybe it shouldn’t be) that it took more than a year for this to work its way through the justice system. But it did. As you may recall, what authorities called “Operation Bear Claw” ended in November 2024 with the arrest of four (4) suspects and the confiscation of at least one (1) bear suit. See “Insurer Thinks Bear Shown in Video Trashing Car Looks a Lot Like a Guy in a Bear Suit” (Nov. 14, 2024). Frankly, that headline should answer a lot of the questions you might have about what happened, but the 2024 article has further details plus a large full-length image of the aforementioned bear suit. But to summarize, the culprits clawed up, or conspired to claw up, a Rolls-Royce and two other luxury vehicles, which they then told insurers had been damaged by bears.

Apparently expecting the insurers to doubt this very plausible and even commonplace explanation for vehicle damage, they helpfully submitted alleged security-cam videos in support of their claims. I should stress that in all three videos, the alleged bear was inside the vehicle. While bears apparently can learn to open car doors, investigators thought it was unlikely that what appeared to be the same bear would climb into three different luxury vehicles at about the same time and place (as the videos showed when compared), and yet not test-drive even one. Clawing up the outside of the cars would have been more plausible, but (1) that probably would have been easier and cheaper to fix, resulting in a lower payout, and (2) it would have been much easier to tell that these weren’t real bears.

Even so, I’m not sure it takes an expert to determine that the beast(s) seen thrashing around in the cars weren’t bears. But it turns out that the State of California has bear experts who are able to tell the difference between “bear” and “guy in a bear suit” even under these circumstances.

According to Insurance Journal (and let me pause here to thank my source for reading Insurance Journal so I don’t have to), the bogus claims amounted to $141,839. On April 16, the California Department of Insurance announced that three of the four defendants had pleaded no contest to felony insurance fraud. Each was sentenced to 180 days in jail, plus probation and restitution. The fourth is due for a preliminary hearing in September. No reason for the delay in his case was given, which leaves me free to speculate that he took a backup bear suit and fled into the Sierras. But I think there are still some real bears left up there, and if so they may have encouraged him to go back and face justice.

“Insurance fraud is a serious crime that drives up costs for consumers,” the department said in a statement, adding that “no scheme is too outrageous for us to investigate.” That last part sounds good but I’m not really sure what it means. Aren’t outrageous schemes the most likely ones to be investigated? (Assuming the White House isn’t involved, I mean.) Are there insurance-fraud schemes so outrageous that other departments of insurance just throw up their hands and won’t look into them? “No, no–too outrageous!” Please advise.

See also, e.g., “Costumed Bear Harasser Wanted by Authorities, Evolution” (Aug. 17, 2015) (wondering why someone would dress up like a bear to harass a real bear); “How to Get Back at Your Ex: First, Kill a Bear” (Oct. 3, 2011) (discussing a bear-suit plan that failed at the first step).