The court’s jurisdiction; Appeal from an amended stipulated order of dismissal; Sandoval v Farmers Ins Exch; Jaber v P & P Hospitality, LLC (Jaber II); Fraud; MCL 500.3173a(4); Candler v Farm Bureau Mut Ins; Williamson v AAA of MI; Gary v Farmers Ins Exch; Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF)

Concluding that it had jurisdiction over this appeal and that the circuit court did not err in granting defendant-insurer (Citizens) summary disposition based on fraud under MCL 500.3173a(4), the court affirmed. The case arose out of a car accident. Defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the “appeal because no appeal as of right may be taken from a consent judgment without an express reservation of the right to appeal.” Defendant relied on Sandoval. But six months after it was issued, the court issued its opinion in Jaber. The court held that given “the holding of Jaber II, Sandoval no longer dictates whether this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal. Instead, this Court must follow the rule established in Jaber II.” It concluded that applying those “principles to the matter at hand, there can be no dispute that plaintiff is an aggrieved party with respect to the [8/22] order, where the trial court ruled that there was no question of fact that plaintiff had committed fraudulent insurance acts, and that he was thus excluded from coverage for PIP benefits.” As a result, he “suffered ‘a concrete and particularized injury’ stemming from the [trial] court’s decision” and was an aggrieved party as to the 8/22 order. However, he “could not appeal by right from the [8/22] order because it was not final. After the [trial] court entered its final order in [8/23], plaintiff could then appeal” that order by right, and also raise issues stemming from the 8/22 order. Since he “was not a party to the stipulated order of dismissal, defendant’s assertion that plaintiff should have reserved a right to appeal the [8/22] order is inconsistent with the contract principles applicable to consent judgments.” Moreover, as the court “recognized in Jaber II, parties may not stipulate to jurisdiction, and the court rules do not require that challenges to orders entered before a final order be preserved by reservation.” Plaintiff argued “that the circuit court erroneously granted summary disposition on the basis of fraud under MCL 500.3173a(4).” He contended “that the errors in his application and his inconsistent deposition testimony were innocent mistakes.” The court disagreed, finding that the “same reasoning set forth by our Supreme Court in Williamson applies here with regard to plaintiff’s deposition statements in support of his demand for coverage.” It concluded that viewing “the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff committed a fraudulent insurance act.” The record supported the conclusion that he signed the MAIPF “application with the knowledge that he was providing false, inaccurate information.” Gary was not dispositive.