Fraud Eliminates Right to No Fault Benefits
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDfamQWQ and at https://lnkd.in/g4BvnMk2, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Post 5091
Court Eliminates an Attempt to Defraud No Fault Placement Facility
Aric Lynn Holloway II (plaintiff), appealed the stipulated order of dismissal in favor of defendant-appellee, Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest (defendant).
In Aric Lynn Holloway II, et al v. Memberselect Insurance Company et al, Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, No. 367611, Court of Appeals of Michigan (May 29, 2025) the plaintiff attempted to convince the Court of Appeals to allow his fraud to succeed.
In a case involving issues of insurance claims, alleged fraud, and the eligibility for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The case arises from a car accident where the plaintiffs, Holloway and his friends, were rear-ended by another vehicle that fled the scene. Holloway sustained various injuries and underwent spinal surgery at Advanced Surgery Center (ASC), assigning his right to PIP benefits to ASC only to find Holloway had committed fraud.
Holloway sought PIP benefits through MemberSelect Insurance Company, which was issued to his parents, and also applied for benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP).
Holloway’s application stated he lived with his girlfriend and daughter, indicating no vehicles were owned in the household. However, he later testified he lived with his parents at the time of the accident. His application included false service dates for attendant-care services, which raised suspicions of fraud.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
ASC intervened in the lawsuit to recover PIP benefits it provided to Holloway. Eventually, Citizens moved for summary disposition, arguing that Holloway committed fraudulent acts by submitting false information in his claims.
The court found that Holloway’s claims were based on knowingly false statements, which included fabricated service dates and misrepresentation of his living situation. The court ruled that he was ineligible for PIP benefits due to fraud.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
The court concluded that Holloway was an aggrieved party following the final order dismissing his claims.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND FRAUD FINDINGS
The court granted summary disposition in favor of Citizens Insurance, concluding that Holloway’s actions constituted a fraudulent insurance act as defined under Michigan law. The court emphasized that the statements made in his application and affidavits were material to his claim, and he was aware they were false.
Holloway’s assertions that discrepancies were innocent mistakes were rejected. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his knowledge of the false information he submitted.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the court dismissed Holloway’s claims for PIP benefits based on the determination that he committed insurance fraud.
When a person injured in a motor vehicle accident lacks insurance, the no-fault act sets forth an order of priority for insurers who may be liable for the payment of PIP benefits. The Court held that a person commits a “fraudulent insurance act” when
1 the person presents or causes to be presented an oral or written statement,
2 the statement is part of or in support of a claim for no-fault benefits, and
3 the claim for benefits was submitted to the MAIPF.
4 the person must have known that the statement contained false information, and
5 the statement concerned a fact or thing material to the claim.
Viewing the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court found no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff committed a fraudulent insurance act.
The record indicates that plaintiff was aware that the attendant-care and replacement-services affidavits he submitted were incorrect.
The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary disposition.
ZALMA OPINION
No Fault insurance was designed to help injured people and take the profit out of fraud because of the limited awards for no fault accidents. In this case fraud was obvious, the plaintiff admitted he lied in his deposition but claimed it was just a mistake not an intent to deceive. The argument failed because the evidence established that he intentionally and incompetently committed fraud. Crime doesn’t pay and he will have to pay for his surgery out of his own funds.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
