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
Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded
Post 5119
Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.
KEY POINTS
1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to ...
GEICO Sued Fraudulent Health Care Providers Under RICO and Settled with the Defendants Who Failed to Pay Settlement
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDpGzdR9 and at https://lnkd.in/gbDfikRG, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Post 5119
Default of Settlement Agreement Reduced to Judgment
In Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, and Geico Casualty Company v. Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D., DEO Medical Services, P.C., and Healthwise Medical Associates, P.C., No. 24-CV-5287 (PKC) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 9, 2025)
Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company and other GEICO companies (“GEICO”) sued Defendants Dominic Emeka Onyema, M.D. (“Onyema”), et al (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging breach of a settlement agreement entered into by the parties to resolve a previous, fraud-related lawsuit (the “Settlement Agreement”). GEICO moved the court for default judgment against ...
ZIFL – Volume 29, Issue 14
Post 5118
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geddcnHj and at https://lnkd.in/g_rB9_th, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
You can read the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://lnkd.in/giaSdH29
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The Historical Basis of Punitive Damages
It is axiomatic that when a claim is denied for fraud that the fraudster will sue for breach of contract and the tort of bad faith and seek punitive damages.
The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi.
You can read this article and the full 20 page issue of the July 15, 2025 issue at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ZIFL-07-15-2025.pdf
Insurer Refuses to Submit to No Fault Insurance Fraud
...
Rulings on Motions Reduced the Issues to be Presented at Trial
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwJKZnCP and at https://zalma/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
CASE OVERVIEW
In Richard Bernier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 4:24-cv-00002-GMS, USDC, D. Alaska (May 28, 2025) Richard Bernier made claim under the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage provided in his State Farm policy, was not satisfied with State Farm's offer and sued. Both parties tried to win by filing motions for summary judgment.
FACTS
Bernier was involved in an auto accident on November 18, 2020, and sought the maximum available UIM coverage under his policy, which was $50,000. State Farm initially offered him $31,342.36, which did not include prejudgment interest or attorney fees.
Prior to trial Bernier had three remaining claims against State Farm:
1. negligent and reckless claims handling;
2. violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
3. award of punitive damages.
Both Bernier and State Farm dispositive motions before ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
