Dispute over PIP benefits; Fraud; Titan Ins Co v Hyten; Credibility; Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co; Meemic Ins Co v Fortson; “The innocent third party rule”; Sisk-Rathburn v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of MI; Principle that healthcare providers do not possess a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for recovery of PIP benefits; Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Collateral estoppel; William Beaumont Hosp v Wass; Res judicata; Garrett v Washington

Holding that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant-insurer on the basis of fraud by defendant’s insured, the court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for medical services it provided for defendant’s insured after she was involved in an accident. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant on the basis of fraudulent statements she made in connection with her insurance claim. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding there was no genuine issue of material fact that the insured made fraudulent statements on her application for PIP benefits, noting she “fraudulently represented her prior medical history in her application for PIP benefits.” Moreover, the evidence was “sufficient as a matter of law to conclude [she] intended to make false statements on her application.” The court also agreed with the trial court that the innocent-third-party rule did not apply to plaintiff, as assignee of an insured. “Plaintiff, as an assignee, was subject to the same claims and possessed the same rights as” defendant’s insured. It further rejected plaintiff’s contention that collateral estoppel barred defendant from raising a fraud defense, noting the issue of whether the insured made false statements was not actually litigated in the lawsuit between her and defendant. However, the court ultimately held that defendant was barred from raising the issue of fraud against plaintiff, as its insured’s assignee, who possessed the same rights as its assignee, and who was "protected by res judicata from defendant’s fraud allegations.”