Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344004; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Krause and Tukel; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant Farm Bureau on the issue of whether there was a genuine issue of fact that plaintiff Renald Powell and intervening plaintiff Mona Powell perpetrated fraud against defendant for purposes of obtaining PIP benefits. In doing so, the Court found that the surveillance evidence presented clearly showed that attendant care providers did not provide attendant care to Mona Powell on the dates of the surveillance purported to have occurred by Mona. The Court further found that plaintiff Renald Powell had perpetrated fraud by signing the insurance application for business auto no-fault insurance despite knowing that Mona Powell’s company was “a fiction.”
This case arose from an accident in which intervening plaintiff Mona Powell was injured while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by plaintiff Renald Powell. Prior to the accident, Mona and plaintiff Renald Powell had purchased a business no-fault automobile insurance policy for Mona’s alleged nonemergency medical transportation business. Following the accident, Mona was treated at a hospital and received treatment from a variety of medical providers. She submitted claims to defendant Farm Bureau Insurance Company for PIP benefits, including medical benefits, replacement services, and 24-hour attendant care. Defendant Farm Bureau initially paid Mona’s claims for PIP benefits, but eventually discontinued these payments, prompting Mona to bring an action against defendant, the driver of the vehicle who hit her, and plaintiff Renald Powell, seeking recovery of first party PIP benefits from defendant Farm Bureau and bringing third-party negligence claims against the other driver and plaintiff Renald Powell. Defendant Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition, contending that plaintiff Renald Powell was a participant in Mona’s fraudulent recovery of attendant care benefits, consequently voiding plaintiff’s liability coverage. The trial court initially denied this motion, but on reconsideration granted the motion, finding “no genuine issue of material fact that [plaintiff] Renald also was a participant in Mona’s fraud, thereby entitling defendant to void liability coverage with respect to Renald.” Mona and plaintiff Renald Powell both appealed that decision.
On appeal, the Court considered Mona Powell and Renald Powell’s argument that the trial court erred by finding that there was no genuine issue of fact that they had committed fraud against defendant Farm Bureau in order to obtained PIP benefits. In analyzing this claim, the Court noted that, pursuant to Scott v Harris, 550 US 372; 127 S Ct 1769; 167 L Ed 2d 686 (2007), “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgement.” In this case, the Court noted that the video surveillance evidence submitted by defendant showed that Mona’s claims for attendant care benefits were fraudulent because care providers did not arrive at her home on several days on which she claimed they provided attendant care. The Court further noted that the video evidence “blatantly” contradicted the attendant care records that Mona and plaintiff Renald Powell contended to be accurate, as “the only way for an individual to access the Powell house without being visible on the surveillance videos would have been to climb over the hedge and sneak through the yards of the Powell neighbors.” Thus, the court held that “[g]iven the video evidence and the absence of any explanation of [the care provider’s] nonappearance, there is no genuine issue of material fact that [the care providers] did not provide attendant care to Mona on the date of the surveillance, contract to the attendant care records and contrary to the deposition testimony of Mona and Renald.”
The Court further noted that there was “no question of fact that Renald participated in Mona’s fraud,” as Mona had falsely represented that she was insuring vehicles to be used in a transportation business in order to obtain a higher liability limit and plaintiff Renald Powell had supported this scheme by signing the application. Consequently, the Court held that:
"The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it palpably erred when it initially denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition by not finding that Renald committed fraud. The video clearly shows that the claims that Hodge and Ford provided attendant care to Mona are false. As such, the trial court’s error was plain, obvious, and readily visible . . . . Consequently, the trial court’s determination that Renald committed insurance fraud by attempting to support Mona’s attendant care claims was certainly within the range of principled outcomes . . . . Because the trial court did not err by finding that Renald participated in Mona’s fraud we need not consider the remaining arguments of Mona and Renald."
