Experience, expertise and common sense.

Fradulent Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) case

Motor Vehicle Litigation / April 1, 2014

Court/Case No: Wayne County Circuit Court/13-016099 NI

Tried/Argued Before: N/A

Demand:  All PIP benefits

Verdict: Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice via stipulated order

Name of Judge(s): Hon. Robert L. Ziolowski

Keys to the Case:

On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in a two-car motor vehicle accident while driving an uninsured 2008 Dodge Charger he did not own.  Plaintiff was deemed not at fault.  Plaintiff complained of injuries at the scene but instead of being transported for treatment he was arrested for Driving While License Suspended. He bonded out while still at the scene of the accident and was picked up by a friend.

On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff signed his original application for benefits pursuant to the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. He utilized the new long form to complete the process. The application was received by MACP on April 18, 2013. The MACP corresponded with Plaintiff indicating that the form was incomplete. Plaintiff failed to respond to the MACP.

On May 26, 2013, it appears that Plaintiff signed another application for benefits. That form was the short form. That subsequent short form application was submitted to MACP by Plaintiff’s counsel on October 16, 2013, and received by MACP on October 17, 2013.  The MACP assigned the claim to State Farm for handling.

Suit was filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on December 16, 2013. After obtaining notice of the suit we initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the initial application for benefits to determine whether Plaintiff actually qualified for MACP benefits. That investigation showed that Plaintiff was in sole possession of the involved vehicle from April 2012 to the date it was totaled on the January 7, 2013. In addition, the owner of the vehicle disclosed that an arrangement was made for Plaintiff to keep the vehicle and make the loan payment directly to the lending institution, GM Financial. We were also able to locate at least three traffic citations that show Plaintiff operating the involved vehicle from May 30, 2012, to the date of loss, January 7, 2013. Many statements made on the MACP application for benefits were proven false.

It became apparent during the investigation of this claim that Plaintiff intentionally made material misrepresentations that could be deemed a violation of the Insurance Fraudulent Acts portion of the Insurance Code.

Plaintiff was scheduled to be deposed on March 18, 2014. Before that deposition could start opposing counsel expressed that it was his intent to voluntarily dismiss the suit with prejudice.

Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case:


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

Best Law Firms - 2024