No-fault insurance; PIP benefits; Fraud evidence; Credibility; Jury instructions; Verdict form; Attorney misconduct; Fair trial; Juror dismissal; Outside influence; Mitigation of damages; Mootness; Cumulative error

The court held that plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial after the jury found no cause of action on her no-fault PIP claim. Plaintiff sought PIP benefits after a rear-end accident, but defendant-insurer denied the claim after investigating and alleging fraud related to replacement services. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of plaintiff’s alleged fraud because “witness credibility is always relevant,” and the evidence bore directly on her credibility about “the benefits she sought and whether she sustained her injuries because of the accident.” The court also held that the fraud instruction and verdict-form question were proper because defendant maintained that plaintiff’s claims were fraudulent, presented evidence on that theory, and the verdict-form question was limited to household-replacement services at plaintiff’s request. The court further noted that any error would not warrant relief because the jury answered “NO” on the fraud question. The court next held that defense counsel’s trial conduct did not deny plaintiff a fair trial because counsel’s arguments about “track-one” and “track-two” doctors and alleged fraud were “consistent with the evidence presented” and were not merely designed to inflame the jury. The court also held that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion by dismissing Juror 4 because the juror disclosed prior treatment at a medical clinic connected to a witness, which was an “outside influence” that could have impeded her ability to serve. Finally, the court held that plaintiff’s mitigation-instruction argument was moot because the jury found she did not suffer an injury arising out of the accident and never reached damages, and that no cumulative-error relief was available because “there can be no cumulative effect where there are no errors.” Affirmed.