Daniels v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company
2:17-cv-10209
E.D. Mich.May 22, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Demitrius Daniels claimed PIP benefits from Esurance for attendant care and household replacement services allegedly provided by his cousin, Senitra Daniels, after an October 18, 2016 automobile accident.
- Daniels filed suit in state court on December 19, 2016; Esurance removed to federal court and the court set a discovery deadline (Sept. 29, 2017) and later extended discovery by stipulation.
- Senitra Daniels’ deposition was scheduled repeatedly (May 30; June 30; Sept. 19; Sept. 21, 2017) but never occurred; counsel canceled or failed to confirm dates and ultimately did not produce her despite a court order requiring deposition by Nov. 17, 2017.
- Esurance moved to compel and later moved to dismiss/for sanctions under Rules 37 and 41 based on the failure to produce the witness; the magistrate’s order warned that failure to appear could lead to preclusion or striking of claims.
- Esurance also moved for summary judgment arguing a policy fraud exclusion applied, relying on surveillance reports and internal summaries suggesting overlapping claims with Liberty Mutual and inconsistent activity by Daniels.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal/striking of claims is warranted for failure to prosecute/comply with discovery orders | Daniels did not meaningfully dispute the failures; counsel suggested some deposition cancellations were mutual or due to health concerns | Esurance argued repeated failures to produce Senitra Daniels and refusal to comply with a court order justified dismissal/striking of the attendant-care and household-replacement claims tied to Senitra | Court granted in part: dismissed/struck Daniels’ claims for household replacement services and attendant care provided by Senitra Daniels as failure to prosecute under Rules 37/41 |
| Whether Esurance is entitled to summary judgment based on the policy fraud exclusion | Daniels disputed that the evidence established fraud; counsel explained some documents were settlement facilitation summaries and surveillance did not show activity during the specific claimed service dates | Esurance argued fraudulent statements/overlapping billing (Liberty Mutual) and surveillance showing activities inconsistent with claimed limitations preclude coverage under the policy fraud exclusion | Court denied summary judgment: found genuine factual disputes (timing, scope of surveillance, and whether statements were materially false) so fraud was not established as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is a docket-management tool and requires careful analysis)
- Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 1997) (attorney-driven discovery failures weigh toward finding bad faith and dismissal)
- Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep't, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (explains factors for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and defines contumacious conduct)
- Bahri v. IDS Property Casualty Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 420 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (interpreting insurance fraud exclusion and standards for rescission/denial when insured made materially false statements)