Kalvin Candler v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan
321 Mich. App. 772
Mich. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff was hit by a hit-and-run driver in 2014, was uninsured, and submitted a PIP claim through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) maintained by the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF).
- MAIPF assigned defendant (Farm Bureau) to service the claim; defendant paid over $150,000 in PIP benefits but refused some attendant/replacement-care benefits.
- Plaintiff submitted replacement-services calendars for Aug, Sept, Oct 2015 purportedly signed by his brother Andrew; discovery showed Andrew stopped providing care in July 2015 and plaintiff's counsel conceded plaintiff signed/forged Andrew's name.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing MCL 500.3173a(2) bars recovery when a claim or supporting statement submitted to the MAIPF contains knowingly false, material information.
- Trial court denied summary disposition; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the statute bars payment when a false, material statement was presented in support of a claim to the MAIPF (even if the false statement was actually submitted to the servicing insurer), and no genuine factual dispute existed that plaintiff knowingly submitted false calendars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 500.3173a(2) bar PIP recovery when a false statement was presented to a servicing insurer rather than the MAIPF? | Statute applies only when the false statement itself was presented to the MAIPF; here the falsity was presented to Farm Bureau, not the MAIPF, so statute doesn't bar recovery. | A false, material statement supporting a claim submitted to the MAIPF triggers MCL 500.3173a(2) regardless of which entity actually received the statement because servicing insurers act on behalf of the MAIPF. | Reversed: statute applies where a false, material statement was presented in support of a claim submitted to the MAIPF; plaintiff's forged calendars met elements and barred recovery. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact about knowledge and materiality of the false statements? | Plaintiff suggested possible issues (e.g., injury), contesting knowledge. | Defendant pointed to concession that plaintiff forged signatures and that care was provided by the girlfriend after July 2015. | Held: No genuine issue — evidence established plaintiff knowingly submitted materially false calendars. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 453 Mich. 149 (discusses treating C(8)/(10) motion as C(10) when outside evidence considered)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (summary disposition standard and consideration of evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456 (standard: grant when no genuine issue of material fact and mover entitled to judgment as a matter of law)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (explains sufficiency required to create genuine issue to defeat summary disposition)
- Szpak v. Inyang, 290 Mich. App. 711 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Bahri v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 420 (distinguished: barred recovery under a contract fraud exclusion, not MAIPF statute)
- W A Foote Mem. Hosp. v. Mich. Assigned Claims Plan, 321 Mich. App. 159 (describes MAIPF/MACP structure and Plan of Operations)
- Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. v. Titan Ins. Co., 314 Mich. App. 577 (context on MAIPF/MACP functions)