Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344004; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Ronayne Krause, and Tukel; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Actual Fraud
Fraud/Misrepresentation
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in the defendant’s favor, which limited the defendant’s obligation to indemnify the plaintiff, Renald Powell, to “the [$20,000, the] minimum amounts required by Michigan’s Financial Responsibility Act, MCL 257.520, and MCL 500.3009.” Powell and his wife, Mona Powell, were involved in a motor vehicle collision while Powell was driving their vehicle, and both submitted fraudulent claims for attendant care benefits afterward. Mona Powell subsequently a filed first-party lawsuit against Farm Bureau and a lawsuit for automobile negligence against Renald, prompting Renald to file this declaratory action against Farm Bureau seeking a declaration confirming his right to indemnification under Mona’s policy. The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled, as a matter of law, that Renald was a participant in Mona’s fraud, and that Farm Bureau was therefore entitled to void liability coverage with respect to Powell beyond the statutory minimum of $20,000 per person.
Mona Powell owned a business purporting to provide nonemergency medical transportation, and for which the Powells purchased a business no-fault insurance policy with a liability limit of $1,000,000. On November 28, 2014, Renald Powell was driving a vehicle insured under the policy with Mona as a passenger when they were struck by another vehicle. Mona sustained injuries in the collision and sought PIP benefits from Farm Bureau, who initially paid said benefits, but eventually stopped after ordering surveillance and discovering that Mona’s claims for attendant care benefits were fraudulent. Mona then filed a first-party action against Farm Bureau and a third-party action against her husband. The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s subsequent motion for summary disposition on the basis that Mona had submitted fraudulent claims for attendant care benefits, but denied a countermotion for summary disposition filed by Renald, thus allowing her claim against Renald to proceed. Farm Bureau then notified Renald that it would not indemnify him for any liability he might incur against Mona, contending that he was a participant in the fraud. In response, Renald filed the instant declaratory action, but the trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition in that action as well, ruling, as a matter of law, that Renald was a participant in Mona’s fraud and that Farm Bureau was therefore entitled to void liability coverage with respect to Renald in excess of the minimum requirement of $20,000 per person.
On appeal, the Powells argued that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that Mona had engaged in fraud and that Renald participated in her fraud. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the surveillance footage of the Powells on the dates for which Mona claimed attendant care benefits “blatantly contradict[ed] the attendant care records Mona and Renald profess[ed were] accurate,” and that there was no question that Renald participated in Mona’s fraud.
There also is no question of fact that Renald participated in Mona’s fraud. Defendant argues that Mona falsely represented that she was insuring vehicles to be used in a transportation business in order to obtain the $1,000,000 liability limit. Renald allegedly supported this scheme by signing the application. The only reasonable inference concerning Momo’s Transport is that the company was a fiction. Mona’s testimony that she intended to start the business “[e]ventually,” which was not supported by any evidence of activity since the corporation was registered in 2011, does not establish a question of fact to counter this inference. Additionally, Renald’s testimony regarding the attendant care Ford and Hodge allegedly provided for Mona establishes his collusion in Mona’s false representations of attendant care. Renald made these statements after defendant terminated Mona’s PIP coverage for fraud, with the apparent purpose of affirming the attendant log to bolster Mona’s first-party claim for no-fault benefits.
