Experience, expertise and common sense.
Motor Vehicle Litigation / November 30, 2018
Court/Case No: Wayne County Circuit Court/17-013589-NI
Tried/Argued Before: Judge
Verdict: $0 - Motion for Summary Disposition granted
Name of Judge(s): Honorable Craig S. Strong
Keys to the Case:
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging significant injuries following a motor vehicle accident occurring on April 14, 2017. Plaintiff claimed that he required transportation to and from medical appointments due to an inability to drive since the accident. Notably, Plaintiff was the owner of the non-emergency medical transportation company that he was allegedly using to get to and from appointments.
Prior to litigation Plaintiff was caught on surveillance driving. During litigation, Plaintiff testified that he did not drive prior to January 5, 2018, the date of a subsequent car accident. If he did drive, he testified it was only for emergencies or short distances. However, surveillance showed Plaintiff driving about 30 miles between three adjacent cities well before January 5, 2018. Surveillance also captured Plaintiff driving before January 5, 2018 and on the same day his company billed Defendant for transportation services.
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that Plaintiff violated the fraud provision of the insurance policy. Plaintiff argued that his testimony created only inconsistencies and did not rise to the level of fraud. However, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion and agreed that the case represented a special circumstance of fraud because Plaintiff was the owner of the transportation company and the patient. As such, Judge Strong (not known for granting such motions) dismissed Plaintiff’s entire case with prejudice.
Additionally, there were Intervening Plaintiffs in this case. These Intervening Plaintiffs were medical providers who intervened in the suit pursuant to a shared assignment. However, because the assignment was executed after Plaintiff committed fraud, the Court agreed that Plaintiff did not have any rights to assign when it was executed. Therefore, Intervening Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice as well.
Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case: