Rafael Gonzalez v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Co of Mi, 331956

On Nov. 2, 2014, Gonzalez was driving; his car was struck by a Dodge Stratus in a hit-and-run. Passengers Purdie and Raines were injured. The Stratus owner was identified as Crystal Burns; the driver fled and was never identified.
Burns denied driving the vehicle and said the car had been stolen and uninsured. an insurance search showed no coverage for the Stratus at the time of the crash.
Gonzalez claimed wage-loss PIP benefits from his insurer (Farm Bureau). Farm Bureau paid approximately $91,281.21 and later obtained surveillance showing Gonzalez performing limited truck-related tasks in December 2014.
Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition (MCR 2.116(C)(10)): (1) to void Gonzalez’s policy and recoup PIP benefits under the policy’s fraud or concealment clause; (2) to dismiss plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist (UM) claim because they could not prove the other driver was uninsured.
The trial court granted both motions; plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment were denied. Plaintiffs obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed both grants of summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gonzalez’s PIP benefits may be rescinded under the policy’s "fraud or concealment" clause	Gonzalez did not fraudulently misrepresent his ability to work; surveillance shows limited activity consistent with attempting to test/maintain his truck, and he informed the insurer he could not resume full work until April 2015	Gonzalez engaged in material, false misrepresentations (including initial deposition denial and surveillance activity) and submitted a wage-loss form with a falsely designated "CFO," so insurer may void the policy and recoup benefits	Reversed summary disposition: genuine issues of material fact exist about ability to work, reliance, and materiality; insurer failed to show undisputed fraud
Whether plaintiffs must prove the other vehicle’s operator was uninsured to recover UM benefits for a hit-and-run	Plaintiffs rely on the policy’s specific hit‑and‑run definition which treats an automobile as uninsured when its owner or operator is unknown and the accident was timely reported	Insurer relied on a general policy provision requiring proof that both the auto and operator lacked liability coverage	Reversed summary disposition: specific hit‑and‑run provision controls; "owner or operator unknown" (disjunctive) suffices for hit‑and‑run UM coverage when police and insurer were notified

Spiek v. Dep’t of Transp., 456 Mich. 331 (standard of review for summary disposition)
Mina v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 218 Mich. App. 678 (elements required to void a policy for misrepresentation)
Bahri v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 420 (fraud exclusion applied where surveillance contradicted claimant’s PIP claims)
DeFrain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 491 Mich. 359 (policy language controls UM entitlement; specific provisions control over general ones)
Royal Prop. Group, LLC v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc., 267 Mich. App. 708 (insurance-policy interpretation is a question of law)
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nikkel, 460 Mich. 558 (enforce insurance contract terms as written)