Experience, expertise and common sense.

First-Party (PIP)

Motor Vehicle Litigation / April 5, 2018

Court/Case No: Wayne County Circuit Court/17-005996-NF

Tried/Argued Before: Judge

Demand: $99,216.36

Verdict: $0 – Motion for Summary Disposition granted

Name of Judge(s): Honorable Annette J. Berry

Keys to the Case:

On April 5, 2018, the Honorable Annette J. Berry of the Wayne County Circuit Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(10) and Bahri v. IDS Prop Cas Ins Co., 308 Mich App 420 (2014).

By way of background, this is a first party no-fault case in which Defendant had previously paid over $228,226.67 in no-fault benefits. As part of her claim, Plaintiff submitted demands for replacement services, outstanding medical expenses and wage loss due to alleged injuries to her neck, back, legs and head. Specifically, Plaintiff submitted replacement service affidavits alleging that she could not drive, clean, cook, take out garbage or take care of her child. Plaintiff submitted detailed household services affidavits for 1,080 straight days from the date of loss.

However, Judge Berry found that each of Plaintiff’s sworn statements were directly contradicted by her social media postings.  Specifically, Plaintiff’s Facebook revealed her vacationing in New Orleans, Las Vegas, Minneapolis and Cancun. While on her trips, she was depicted dancing at night clubs, singing karaoke, riding on helicopters and performing other physical activities that were contradictory to her claimed limitations. Also while on these trips, Plaintiff testified that her son, who was allegedly assisting her with the aforementioned chores, was not present on any of the vacations. Judge Berry discredited Plaintiff’s argument that the alleged chores would have needed to be done but-for her traveling.

Judge Berry found this case to be identical to Bahri, given the direct contradiction between Plaintiff’s claimed limitations and her physical capabilities revealed by her social media. As such, Judge Berry determined that these findings violated Defendant’s fraud provision of Plaintiff’s policy and granted its motion for summary disposition.

This order will be used to dismiss a myriad of provider claims pending in different jurisdictions relating to medical treatment allegedly provided to Plaintiff.

Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case:


Quality legal representation is the result of knowledge, economy & hard work

Best Law Firms - 2024