The No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Action for first-party personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Uninsured/underinsured (UM) benefits; Policy fraud provision; Whether summary disposition was premature; Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club; Gara v. Woodbridge Tavern

Holding that defendant-insurer was entitled to summary disposition based on the policy’s fraud provision, and that it was not premature, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant in this action for first-party PIP benefits and UM benefits. Plaintiffs asserted that plaintiff-husband (Mr. Saleh) was the victim of a hit-and-run car accident. An expert (P) conducted a collision damage analysis of accident on defendant’s behalf and reported the results to defendant in a report (referred to as the Exponent report). P inspected Mr. Saleh’s Jeep and downloaded its Event Data Recorder (EDR) to obtain data related to the accident. He concluded “that physical damage to the Jeep and its EDR data were not consistent with the events Mr. Saleh described.” The policy’s fraud provision stated “in relevant part that defendant ‘may void this policy or deny coverage for an accident or loss if you or an insured have concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance . . . .’ Defendant argued that plaintiffs made a material misrepresentation when claiming that the crash was a hit-and-run accident, as the physical and electronic crash data evidence showed the accident did not occur the way Mr. Salah described. Instead, the evidence indicated that two minor collisions were intentionally staged. Data from the EDR showed that the vehicle was twice driven forward into an object from a stopped position, at low but increasing speeds, and that the final collision with the object occurred one minute after the immediately prior collision. Neither collision deployed the airbags, which were triggered in some other fashion. The EDR data was inconsistent with Mr. Saleh’s account” and supported P’s finding “that the two collisions were intentionally staged. Plaintiffs did not dispute the” EDR’s accuracy or offer “an expert witness affidavit or other evidence at the summary disposition hearing to materially contest the conclusions drawn from the data.” The burden shifted to them to show a genuine issue of material fact as to “whether Mr. Saleh materially misrepresented the nature of the collision and triggered the fraud exclusion, as raised in defendant’s affirmative defense.” The court held that they failed to do so. The record did “not ‘leave[] open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.’”