Experience, expertise and common sense.
Motor Vehicle Litigation / March 16, 2018
Court/Case No: Wayne County Circuit Court/17-006122-NF
Tried/Argued Before: Judge
Verdict: $0 – Motion for Summary Disposition granted
Name of Judge(s): Honorable John Murphy
Keys to the Case:
On March 16, 2018, the Honorable John Murphy 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, as part of his claim for no-fault benefits, Plaintiff submitted demands for replacement services, outstanding medical expenses and wage loss due to alleged injuries to his neck, back, legs and head. Specifically, Plaintiff submitted replacement service affidavits alleging that he could not drive, run errands, cook, take out garbage or take care of his child. He submitted a wage loss verification form alleging that he had not worked a single day after the accident due to limitations from his injuries.
However, Judge Murphy found that each of Plaintiff’s sworn statements were directly contradicted by surveillance taken in 2017. Specifically, such surveillance revealed Plaintiff at his place of employment for hours at a time. While at work, Plaintiff was depicted performing manual labor including, but not limited to lifting multiple items overhead into a truck bed such as large trash bags, a 6’ by 3’ wooden cabinet and a steel wheel barrow. Plaintiff was also depicted driving all around town making numerous stops for errands. Notably, on the same days surveillance was taken, Plaintiff submitted replacement services forms alleging that he required assistance with much of the same.
Judge Murphy found this case to be identical to Bahri, given the direct contradiction between Plaintiff’s claimed limitations and his physical capabilities revealed by surveillance. As such, Judge Murphy determined that these findings violated the fraud provision of Plaintiff’s policy and granted Defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case: