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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
