Yes, No, Maybe-So: Self-Conflicting Testimony in Fraudulent Insurance Cases

It is well established that self-conflicting testimony does not allow a party to manufacture a question of material fact. Courts should not presume that either of two arguable contradictory statements is “the true one.” Accordingly, a case-by-case approach in analyzing arguably inconsistent deposition testimony has been adopted by the Michigan Court of Appeals. 

In this case, the careful review of Plaintiff’s self-conflicting deposition testimony could only be resolved with the determination that Plaintiff committed a fraudulent act.

For the full article, click here: https://bit.ly/3BeYBOv