Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #344950; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Sawyer, and Shapiro; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Fraud/Misrepresentation
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary disposition seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits. In so affirming, the Court of Appeals held that a fraud exclusion provision cannot be applied to a resident relative of the named insured, because the resident relative’s entitlement to no-fault PIP benefits is governed entirely by statute—MCL 500.3114(1).
Anthony Lacascio was severely injured when he was struck by a car as a pedestrian. At the time of the collision, Lacascio was a resident relative of his father for purposes of MCL 500.3114(1), and his father maintained an automobile insurance policy issued by Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau denied Lacascio’s claim for PIP benefits and invoked the fraud exclusion provision in Lacascio’s father’s policy in an attempt to void the policy altogether, based on alleged misrepresentations made by Lacascio. Lacascio subsequently filed suit, and Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary disposition, which the trial court denied, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lacascio intended to defraud Farm Bureau.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition, albeit for different reasons. The Court relied on its previous holding in Meemic Ins. Co. v. Fortson, 324 Mich App 467 (2018), in which it concluded, “Because MCL 500.3114(1) mandates coverage for a resident relative domiciled with a policyholder, the fraud-exclusion provision, as applied to [the son’s] claim, is invalid because it conflicts with [the son’s] statutory right to receive benefits under MCL 500.3114(1).” Put another way, the Farm Bureau contract could not deny Lacascio his statutory right to PIP benefits. The Court went on:
Fortson is on all fours with the present case. Like the claimant in Fortson, plaintiff was required by MCL 500.3114(1) to seek benefits under his father’s no-fault policy. As such, his claim is governed by statute, not the policy. Thus, defendant cannot rely on the fraud-exclusion clause to bar plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits. It is immaterial that defendant sought to duplicate MCL 500.3114(1) in its policy by defining “insured” to include the named insured’s family members. And, although defendant cancelled the policy as to plaintiff’s father, plaintiff’s claim is unaffected because it was made before the policy was cancelled.
