Plaintiff Yasmine Diallo was injured in an auto accident while driving a vehicle insured by Defendant Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. Thereafter, Ms. Diallo sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits pursuant to the No-Fault Act. Ms. Diallo’s insurance policy through defendant contained a fraud exclusion, which Defendant argued precluded the payment of replacement service benefits to Ms. Diallo.
In support of their denial, defendant stated that the plaintiff submitted replacement service claims that were impossible to exist because on the days on which the services were claimed to have been performed, the plaintiff and the person who allegedly performed the services were on two different continents. Specifically, the plaintiff’s husband, who allegedly performed the services, was in Michigan, while the plaintiff was in Europe. The defendant learned about the trip to Europe through the plaintiff’s Facebook posts.
The Plaintiff tried to correct the mistake by submitting an affidavit from her husband, who was not a native English speaker “stating that he believed he was signing the forms on behalf of all providers and that he was confused during his deposition about the meaning of the word ‘you.’” However, the trial court discounted the affidavit and instead found that the plaintiff submitted fraudulent claims for household replacement services and as such, summary disposition in favor of defendant was proper. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Nationwide. The case is Diallo v Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals case 328639, decided November 15, 2016.
Read more about our expertise in personal injury law and No-Fault Insurance.
PERSONAL INJURY & ACCIDENT LAW NO FAULT INSURANCEAbout the Author
