Luzviminda Lanurias v. Progressive Insurance Company, 327435

Background

Lanurias was in a 2011 car accident and sought no-fault benefits for case management, attendant care, transportation, and household replacement services provided by BNP, Level One, Timely Transportation, and attendant Haqq.
Level One submitted attendant-care logs and invoices representing RN supervision and daily hours that Haqq later testified were inaccurate or preprinted; Haqq signed forms at Level One’s direction.
Progressive investigated, obtained an IME concluding attendant care/household services were not required, negotiated payments to Level One ($21,450 paid), and terminated benefits.
Plaintiffs sued Progressive for unpaid no-fault benefits; Progressive counterclaimed against Level One and Dorsey for fraud and related theories.
A jury found Lanurias was not injured from the accident and that Level One committed fraud; judgment awarded Progressive $21,450.
Trial court awarded Progressive case-evaluation sanctions and MCL 500.3148(2) sanctions; plaintiffs appealed on multiple grounds and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition on Progressive’s fraud counterclaim was improper	Level One argued defendant failed to identify a material false representation or reliance	Progressive argued attendant-care logs and billing falsely represented RN supervision and hours, relied upon in payment negotiations	Denial of plaintiffs’ C(10) motion affirmed: genuine issues of material fact existed on fraud
Whether verdict (no injury; fraud) was against great weight of evidence	Plaintiffs argued medical testimony established injury and that fraud finding lacked support	Progressive emphasized inconsistencies in plaintiff’s reports, negative MRIs, IME opinion, and testimony about falsified logs	Denial of new-trial/remittitur affirmed: competent evidence supported jury verdicts
Whether case-evaluation and MCL 500.3148(2) sanctions were improper	Plaintiffs challenged sanctions as unwarranted	Progressive argued plaintiffs rejected evaluations and verdict was less favorable than evaluations; also sought statutory fees	Case-evaluation sanctions affirmed (verdict not more favorable to plaintiffs). MCL 500.3148(2) issue not addressed on merits because not in Questions Presented, but court noted no clear error if considered
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying bifurcation, remittitur, motions in limine, or by admitting/excluding documents	Plaintiffs argued prejudice from single trial, improper orders, excluded business-records evidence, and other trial rulings	Progressive argued overlapping proof made bifurcation unnecessary; documents were privileged; orders mirrored rulings and caused no prejudice	All procedural and evidentiary rulings affirmed or deemed abandoned; attorney-client privilege ruling and denial to bifurcate upheld; rule-violation in order entry found non-prejudicial

Key Cases Cited

Cuddington v. United Health Servs., 298 Mich. App. 264 (documentary-evidence review for MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich. 200 (standards for summary disposition under C(10))
Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC, 307 Mich. App. 220 (elements of fraud)
Douglas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 492 Mich. 241 (no-fault PIP benefits—allowable expenses standard)
Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co., 227 Mich. App. 614 (scope of attorney-client privilege and communications through agents)