Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 338388; Unpublished
Judges Cameron, Jansen, O’Connell per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Fraud/Misrepresentation
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for Defendant Farm Bureau General Insurance (“Farm Bureau”) regarding its decision to rescind the no-fault policy based on fraud. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision because there was evidence that Plaintiff Ali Soueidan (“Ali”) conducted work that he said he was unable to do, performed household chores that he said he was unable to perform, and was more physically able than he claimed to be.
Ali received no-fault PIP benefits from a motor vehicle accident he was involved in. Ali was an owner and a manager of a car wash and oil change shop. After the accident, Ali’s doctor gave him a disability certificate, and at that time Ali stopped working. Ali claimed that his wife Zahra Soueidan (“Zahra”) did all the household chores, helped him bath, and helped him get dressed. Moreover, Ali claimed that he was unable to work following the accident. Farm Bureau initially paid Ali’s PIP benefits for work-loss and replacement services. Farm Bureau hired an investigator to examine if Ali was committing fraud. Over several months the investigator documented Ali going into his brother’s car wash, reading mail, doing paperwork, opening a car hood, locking up his brother’s store, working a cash register, and pushing snow for a few minutes.
First, the Court noted that Ali claimed that he did not work at all since the accident. While the investigator did not find evidence of Ali working at his own business, the investigator did find evidence of Ali doing work-like activities at his brother’s place of business. Over several months Ali visited his brother’s car wash and oil change shop. Several times while he was there Ali read the mail and did paperwork. Once Ali even locked the business door at the end of the day. Another day Ali “tinkered” with a hood latch and looked under the hood of the car. Ali even rang the investigator up at the cash register one time. The Court said that this evidence directly contradicted Ali’s assertion that he could no longer work. Ali was capable of driving to a place of employment, reading through the mail, doing paperwork, and other work-related tasks.
Second, the Court noted that Ali claimed that doctors restricted him from doing any housework and Zahra had to do everything after the accident that he could not do. Zahra stated that the couple had hired individuals to help with some household tasks. The Court noted that Zahra did not provide any proof of this claim; rather, she explained that the couple had paid money up front to the individuals that helped with the services. Zahra also testified that there was no way that Ali could shovel snow in his condition. On December 14, 2013, the investigator witnessed a snow fall of about two inches. Zahra paid two children to shovel the snow in the morning and she herself shoveled the snow in the afternoon. However, when Ali returned home at 6:00 PM he grabbed a snow shovel and pushed snow around until 6:04 PM. Ali even scooped and threw some snow during that time. The Court found that this evidence directly contradicted Ali’s assertion that he could not perform housework, especially when using his right arm.
Ali also asserted that he needed help from Zahra getting dressed and bathing because his right arm was injured. However, on October 28, 2018 Ali was witnessed “vigorously” pulling on the ignition string of his lawn mower. When pulling on the ignition string, Ali’s arm went above his shoulder. On November 12, 2013 Ali was witnessed cleaning his garage and on November 14, 2013 he dropped off and picked up his kids from a learning and sports center. The Court found that this undermined Ali’s testimony that he was unable to do certain personal tasks without the help of Zahra.
Ali and Zahra also testified that Ali was slow to begin driving again and only did so a few months before the May 2015 deposition. However, Ali had been witnessed driving in October, November, and December of 2013. Finally, while Ali testified in October 2014 that he and Zahra had not left Michigan, Zahra testified at the deposition that the family left for Florida in August 2014. Moreover, Zahra had submitted replacement services bills while the family was in Florida. The Court found this to greatly undermine the credibility of Ali and Zahra.
“All of this evidence belies plaintiff’s assertion that he needed replacement services, and it directly contradicts the representations made in the household services statements. Plaintiff said that he could not work, but he frequented his place of employment after the date that plaintiff claimed that he stopped working. Plaintiff said that he needed help getting dressed and putting on his belt buckle, but he was observed fixing a lawn mower and shoveling snow. Zahra claimed that plaintiff only began to drive a few months before her deposition on May 26, 2015, but he was observed driving as early as October 2013. Additionally, plaintiff made claims for replacement services while he was on vacation in Florida and in Mexico.”
Thus, the Court found no genuine issue of material fact and it upheld the trial court grant of summary disposition.
