The No-Fault Act; Action for first-party personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Household services claims; False & material misrepresentations; “Fraudulent insurance act” (MCL 500.3173a(4)); Candler v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; Bakeman v Citizens Ins Co of Midwest; Distinguishing Gary v Farmers Ins Exch; Misstatements in the litigation process; Williamson v AAA of MI; Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF); Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

The court held that “plaintiff committed a fraudulent insurance act” and as a result, “was ineligible for PIP benefits through the MACP.” The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant-Farm Bureau in this first-party action for PIP benefits. Plaintiff was injured while operating a motorized scooter that was struck by an automobile. He applied with the MAIPF for PIP benefits under the MACP. His claim was assigned to Farm Bureau. Plaintiff asserted the trial court erred because genuine issues of material fact existed whether he “made false and material misrepresentations in support of his household services claims . . . .” The court noted that the dispute here involved “the fourth Candler factor—whether plaintiff knew the statements contained false information.” It concluded that the evidence showed he “knew that the household services statements that he submitted for the months of” August through “December 2021 were not correct.” He knew that the person who was providing the services (KR) was providing them to plaintiff’s wife (VR), “not plaintiff, before the accident and that the services did not change after the accident. Plaintiff also knew that [KR] did not perform any window washing. And plaintiff knew that he was not entitled to make a claim for services for dates before the subject accident. No reasonable jury could conclude that [he] did not know that he was submitting false information material to his claim for no-fault benefits.” While he relied on Gary, that case was distinguishable. Unlike the plaintiff in Gary, there was “no evidence in this case that plaintiff suffered a cognitive impairment.” In addition, unlike “the household services statements in this case, the forms in Gary were not completed by the plaintiff. Further, there was no testimony from the service provider in Gary that the services were not actually provided. The errors in plaintiff’s forms were not, as he suggests, merely typographical. [His] multitudinous misrepresentations were substantive, which also distinguishes this case from Gary.” And in light of Williamson, the court rejected his “argument that misstatements made in the litigation process are not actionable.” Finally, it declined “plaintiff’s invitation to express disagreement with Bakeman’s analysis of the scienter requirement of MCL 500.3173a.” Affirmed.