Sign Off: Submission of Inaccurate Attendant Care Forms by Plaintiff Satisfies Elements of Fraud

While Williams v Nationwide specifically dealt with MCL 500.3173a, a statute pertaining to the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF), the courts use a similar analysis under Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 423-426 (2014), wherein the Court held that a fraud provision in an insurance contract could bar a claim for PIP benefits when the policyholder filed a claim for replacement services for a date prior to the subject accident.  The difference between Williams and Bahri is that in Williams, the MAIPF does not have an insurance contract with the insured so they must rely on a statute; however, in Bahri, there was a policy of insurance so the fraud provision within the insurance contract controlled.

To access the full article: https://bit.ly/3dheo0u