Experience, expertise and common sense.
Motor Vehicle Litigation / July 10, 2019
Court/Case No: Wayne County Circuit Court/18-003660-NF
Tried/Argued Before: Judge
Verdict: $0 – Motion for summary disposition granted
Name of Judge(s): Honorable Martha M. Snow
Keys to the Case:
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging significant injuries following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 3, 2017. Subsequently, Plaintiff claimed that she required transportation to and from medical appointments due to her inability to drive following the accident. However, Plaintiff was caught on surveillance driving without difficulty on various occasions including on the same days that she was billing Defendant for medical transportation. Further, at Plaintiff’s deposition, she testified that she could not drive after the subject accident due to her alleged injuries.
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that Plaintiff violated the fraud provision of the insurance policy. Plaintiff argued that Plaintiff’s testimony raises a question of fact for the jury to decide. Specifically, she argued that all she said was that she couldn’t drive at the time, which could have meant for various reasons, such as not having a vehicle. Defendant argued that Plaintiff testified that way in response to questions specifically asking her what she could no longer do because of her alleged injuries, and driving was one of them. In addition, Defendant argued that despite the testimony, Plaintiff’s submission of disability certificates showing an inability to drive when in fact she was capable of driving during that time amounted to fraud.
The Court granted Defendant’s motion, agreeing that the case represented fraud. As such, Judge Snow dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. There was also a provider Plaintiff in this case seeking claims for medical services allegedly provided to Plaintiff as a result of the accident. The Court agreed that the provider Plaintiff’s claims were dependent on Plaintiff having a claim for no-fault benefits against Defendant. Due to Plaintiff’s claim being dismissed on the basis of fraud, the provider Plaintiff’s claims were also dismissed with prejudice.
Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case: