Where the Court of Appeals established a categorical rule that MCL 500.3173a(4) applies to prelitigation statements only, that rule is overly broad, so a remand is necessary.
“The no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., ‘created a compulsory motor vehicle insurance program under which insureds may recover directly from their insurers, without regard to fault, for qualifying economic losses arising from motor vehicle incidents.’ McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 189; 795 NW2d 517 (2010), citing MCL 500.3101 and 500.3105. ‘The goal of the no-fault insurance system was to provide victims of motor vehicle accidents assured, adequate, and prompt reparation for certain economic losses.’ Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 578-579; 267 NW2d 72 (1978). To that end, when an injured person lacks insurance, the no-fault act sets forth an order of priority for payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits by the insurers of the various vehicles involved, by the insurers of the people who operated or owned the vehicles involved, or by the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP).
“The Legislature established the MACP to provide an injured person with coverage when there is no other applicable insurer in the order of priority. See MCL 500.3115 and MCL 500.3172(1). In such cases, the claim is assigned to a Michigan auto insurer. See MCL 500.3172(2). A MACP claim ‘that contains or is supported by a fraudulent insurance act,’ however, ‘is ineligible for payment of [PIP] benefits.’ MCL 500.3173a(4).
“This case presents an issue of first impression: whether MCL 500.3173a(4) applies to misrepresentations made during discovery in the course of litigation. The Court of Appeals’ opinion below established a categorical rule that MCL 500.3173a(4) applies to prelitigation statements only. We find this rule to be overly broad and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
“Given its holding, the Court of Appeals declined to ‘address the Estate’s alternative arguments that AAA failed to satisfy the intent and materiality prongs for a fraudulent insurance act under MCL 500.3173a(4), or that AAA failed to plead the affirmative defense of fraud with sufficient particularity.’ ... We directed the parties to only address ‘whether MCL 500.3173a(4), the statutory provision governing fraudulent insurance acts in the filing of a claim for no-fault benefits, applies to misrepresentations offered during discovery.’ ... We hold that it can. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals to address the heretofore unresolved issues. We do not retain jurisdiction.”
Williamson v. AAA of Michigan; MiLW 06-108092, 12 pages; Michigan Supreme Court; Welch, J., joined by Clement, C.J., Zahra, J., Viviano, J., Bernstein, J., Cavanagh, J., Bolden, J.; on appeal from the Court of Appeals; Carl L. Collins for appellant; Michelle A. Endress for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0