Insurance Fraud Video surveillance.

Byline: Michigan Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a defendant insurance company denied a claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits following a car accident, an award of summary disposition in the defendant's favor should be affirmed based on evidence of fraud.

"This case involved two lawsuits. Intervening plaintiff Mona Powell brought suit for automobile negligence. Plaintiff, Renald Powell, brought this action for a declaratory judgment to confirm his right to indemnification under defendant's no-fault insurance policy with Mona Powell. Defendant moved for summary disposition on the ground that there had been fraud in the underlying lawsuits. The trial court initially denied defendant's motion for summary disposition, but on reconsideration held that Renald was a participant in Mona's fraud to recover benefits under the policy, and therefore, defendant's obligation to indemnify Renald was 'limited to the minimum amounts required by Michigan's Financial Responsibility Act, MCL 257.520, and MCL 500.3009.' Mona now appeals, and Renald cross-appeals, as of right.

"The trial court found that video surveillance evidence submitted by defendant showed that Mona's claims for attendant care benefits were fraudulent because the evidence showed that care providers did not arrive at Mona's house on several days on which she claimed they provided attendant care.

"The video evidence in this case blatantly contradicts the attendant care records Mona and Renald profess are accurate.

"There also is no question of fact that Renald participated in Mona's fraud. Defendant argues that Mona falsely represented that she was insuring vehicles to be used in a transportation business in order to obtain the $1,000,000 liability limit. Renald allegedly supported this scheme by signing the application. The only reasonable inference concerning Momo's Transport is that the company was a fiction. Mona's testimony that she intended to start the business '[e]ventually,' which was not supported by any evidence of activity since the corporation was registered in 2011, does not establish a question of fact to...