Blog

Attorney Stephen C. Madej recently obtained dismissal of a fraudulent No-Fault claim pursuant to the "Fraud or Concealment" provision of his client's insurance policy.  The testimony of the Plaintiff's alleged replacement service provider revealed that 115 days of household services claimed by Plaintiff were never actually performed.  Moreover, surveillance showed the Plaintiff driving herself to a physical therapy provider, walking inside the provider's office for approximately 5 minutes, and returning to a medical transportation van.  The Plaintiff was then seen on surveillance video signing a medical transportation acknowledgement form, and then returning to her own vehicle in the same parking lot.  The medical transportation acknowledgement form was subsequently submitted to the insurer and Plaintiff testified that she signed the form to show that the services were actually rendered.  The trial court agreed with Mr. Madej and held that the Plaintiff had violated the "Concealment or Fraud" provision of the insurance policy.  Thus, the trial court dismissed this claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) finding that there was no question of fact regarding the Plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentations.  Plaintiff sought approximately $198,000 in No-Fault benefits.

Prior to obtaining dismissal of the No-Fault claim, Mr. Madej also obtained dismissal of the Uninsured Motorist claim based upon the "no contact" provision of the insurance policy requiring there to be contact with another motor vehicle in an alleged hit-and-run motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiff's testimony established that there was no contact with another motor vehicle.