Andy Saleh v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, 345866

On Dec. 29, 2016 Andy Saleh reported a hit-and-run that caused him to lose control and strike a concrete barrier; he sought PIP and UM benefits from Safeco.
Safeco obtained an Exponent Engineering report after downloading the Jeep’s Event Data Recorder (EDR); the EDR showed two separate low-speed frontal impacts recorded about one minute apart, with the vehicle stopped before each impact.
Exponent concluded the physical damage and EDR data were inconsistent with Saleh’s hit-and-run account and were "consistent with a staged attempt to damage the vehicle and attempt deployment of the airbags." Physical evidence also suggested airbags were electronically deployed separate from the recorded impacts.
Safeco denied coverage under the policy’s fraud provision and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), attaching the Exponent report and EDR-based affidavit.
Plaintiffs disputed Exponent, sought the raw EDR data late in discovery and moved to compel, and submitted an affidavit from their expert (Brown) contesting Exponent’s interpretation but not disputing the underlying EDR data; the trial court granted Safeco’s motion and denied reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the uncontested EDR and physical evidence created no genuine issue of material fact that Saleh materially misrepresented the loss and that further discovery was unlikely to produce evidence to defeat summary disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition was improper where insurer invoked policy fraud exclusion based on EDR/forensic report	Saleh argued his consistent testimony and portions of the Exponent report created a factual dispute about the collision’s nature	Safeco argued the objective EDR data and expert analysis showed staged collisions inconsistent with Saleh’s hit-and-run, triggering the fraud exclusion	Court held no genuine issue of material fact; uncontested EDR/physical evidence supported fraud-based denial and justified (C)(10) dismissal
Whether summary disposition was premature because plaintiffs lacked raw EDR and could not obtain their own expert analysis	Plaintiffs argued discovery was incomplete, insurer withheld raw EDR, and independent expert could show Exponent’s errors	Safeco argued plaintiffs never showed that additional EDR analysis would likely produce evidence to create a genuine factual dispute	Court held summary disposition was not premature; plaintiffs offered no affidavit or concrete showing that further discovery or expert analysis would likely change the outcome

Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Eng’g, Inc, 285 Mich App 362 (2009) (summary-judgment standard; nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute)
Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 491 Mich 200 (2012) (MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests factual sufficiency of complaint)
West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (2003) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153 (1994) (trial court may not weigh credibility on summary disposition)
Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358 (1996) (burden-shifting on (C)(10) motions)
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Tr v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264 (2009) (summary disposition before discovery is premature only if further discovery likely to uncover supporting facts)
Gara v Woodbridge Tavern, 224 Mich App 63 (1997) (party opposing summary disposition must show discovery would uncover factual dispute)
Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406 (2010) (court must draw reasonable inferences for nonmoving party but may not weigh credibility)