Nada Yelda v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 334784

Background

Yelda was injured in an April 2015 motor-vehicle accident and sought first-party no-fault attendant-care and replacement-service benefits, submitting timesheets claiming extensive daily help from her adult son.
Yelda testified she had severe limitations (could walk only 10–15 feet unassisted, could not use stairs, bend, turn her neck, or sit/stand for long periods).
Auto-Owners hired a private investigator who conducted surveillance on three dates and produced video footage and a report purporting to show Yelda performing activities inconsistent with her claimed limitations.
Auto-Owners moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) relying on a policy exclusion for fraudulent statements; it submitted surveillance videos and investigator reports but no affidavit from the investigator.
Yelda submitted a sworn affidavit disputing that she was the person in parts of the footage and stated the images did not contradict her testimony.
The trial court dismissed Yelda’s claims for fraud but expressly did not view the surveillance videos; the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded because the court failed to consider all submitted evidence as required by MCR 2.116(G)(5).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with MCR 2.116(G)(5) in considering all evidence on a (C)(10) motion	Yelda argued the court failed to review the surveillance video and therefore did not consider all affidavits/depositions/documentary evidence	Auto-Owners proceeded on its surveillance report and videos, asserting fraud supports summary dismissal	Court held trial court erred by not considering the submitted surveillance videos and unsworn report; vacated and remanded
Whether summary dismissal was appropriate on fraud grounds under the policy exclusion	Yelda argued identity of the person in the footage and context create genuine issues of material fact	Auto-Owners argued the footage and reports established that Yelda’s claims were fraudulent	Court declined to decide the fraud merits on appeal, remanding so the trial court can view the footage and resolve factual disputes
Whether the court could credit an unsworn investigator report over a sworn affidavit	Yelda argued the court should not credit unsworn reports over her sworn affidavit contesting identity and actions	Auto-Owners treated the investigator’s report and stills as reliable evidence of fraud	Court held it was error to credit the unsworn report without viewing the video and resolving conflicts with Yelda’s sworn affidavit
Whether costs could be taxed to Yelda now that relief was procedural	Yelda sought relief including costs	Auto-Owners at risk of having claims deemed frivolous if fraud proven	Court directed that Yelda may not tax costs on appeal; left sanctions/costs to trial court if it later deems claims frivolous

Key Cases Cited

Wayne Co v Wayne Co Retirement Comm, 267 Mich. App. 230 (2005) (standard of review for summary disposition)
Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich. App. 618 (2004) (MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests factual support of claims)
West v General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (2003) (summary disposition standard and genuine-issue definition)
Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich. App. 132 (2013) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (trial court must consider submitted affidavits and documentary evidence under MCR 2.116(G)(5))
Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich. 155 (2002) (remand required where trial court failed to consider submitted affidavit evidence)