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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
