Abdul Nahshal v. Fremont Insurance Company
922 N.W.2d 662
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Abdul Nahshal was injured in a rollover car crash and sought no-fault PIP benefits (work-loss, attendant care, replacement services); jury awarded PIP benefits and plaintiff later obtained attorney fees and interest.
- Plaintiff’s wife testified she assisted him (including toileting) after the accident and submitted attendant-care documentation to the insurer; records indicated toileting assistance for 17 days.
- Defendant (Fremont Insurance) disputed the extent of attendant care, alleged fraud, and argued the policy’s fraud exclusion voided coverage.
- On cross and redirect, plaintiff’s wife was asked about being a “religious person” and whether honesty was important; defense objected but the trial court allowed the answers.
- Defendant moved for directed verdict/JNOV alleging intentional misrepresentation (citing an asserted $80,000 toileting claim); motions were denied. Defendant also contested the award of attorney fees.
- The Court of Appeals found the religious-questioning was error but harmless in this civil case, upheld denial of directed verdict/JNOV, and affirmed the award of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of testimony about religion to bolster witness credibility | Testimony was responsive to credibility attacks and admissible contextually | Questioning violated MCL 600.1436 and MRE 610; defendant sought automatic reversal | Error to admit religious‑belief testimony, but in civil case reviewed for prejudice; error was harmless; no new trial |
| Directed verdict / JNOV based on alleged fraud (policy void) | Wife’s records and testimony showed limited toileting assistance; no material intentional misrepresentation proved | Plaintiff admitted wife submitted false claims (claimed $80,000 for year of toileting), so fraud exclusion voids policy | Defendant failed to prove required elements of intentional misrepresentation; reasonable juror question existed; denial of directed verdict/JNOV affirmed |
| Award of attorney fees under No‑Fault Act (MCL 500.3142) | Insurer unreasonably withheld full work‑loss benefits; statutory presumption unrebutted | Trial court applied improper standard (reliance on hindsight) | Even if phrasing ambiguous, insurer did not overcome presumption or produce CPA records; fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hall, 391 Mich 175 (1974) (questions about a defendant’s belief in a Supreme Being require reversal in criminal context)
- People v. Bouchee, 400 Mich 253 (1977) (extension of Hall in criminal cases)
- People v. Burton, 401 Mich 415 (1977) (swift corrective action can mitigate error)
- People v. McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635 (2003) (distinguishing questioning of third‑party witness)
- Sibley v. Morse, 146 Mich 463 (1906) (in civil case court reviewed improper religious questioning for prejudice)
- Graves v. People, 458 Mich 476 (1998) (automatic reversal disfavored; harmless‑error jurisprudence)
- Bahri v. IDS Property Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich App 420 (2014) (elements insurer must prove to void policy for fraud)
- Attard v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 237 Mich App 311 (1999) (presumption that delay/refusal to pay PIP benefits is unreasonable)
- Pellegrino v. Ampco Sys. Parking, 486 Mich 330 (2010) (noting civil structural‑error exceptions like Batson)
- Neder v. United States, 527 US 1 (1999) (discussion of structural error and automatic reversal)