Toriana Thomas v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co, 332100

Plaintiff (Toriana Thomas) sued Allstate for benefits; case reached Michigan Court of Appeals after lower-court proceedings on summary disposition.
Allstate invoked the policy’s anti-fraud provision, arguing Thomas made fraudulent statements about post-accident needs for assistance and prescription sunglasses.
Evidence for Allstate included private-investigator photographs (January 14, 2014) and Facebook photos suggesting plaintiff did not need glasses or assistance claimed.
Plaintiff maintained she needed prescription sunglasses for daylight and help with ordinary daily tasks following the accident.
The majority opinion concluded genuine issues of material fact remained; Judge O’Brien dissented, arguing the evidence made fraud conclusively demonstrable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition is appropriate under the policy’s anti-fraud provision where plaintiff’s claimed need for glasses and daily assistance conflicts with surveillance and social-media photos	Thomas: claimed she needed prescription sunglasses in daylight and assistance with daily tasks due to the accident	Allstate: surveillance and Facebook photos show she performed activities without glasses or assistance, demonstrating fraudulent claims	Majority: genuine issues of material fact preclude summary disposition; Dissent (O’Brien): reasonable minds could not differ and summary disposition should be affirmed

Bahri v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 420 (Court of Appeals) (summary disposition appropriate when clear evidence shows fraudulent representations)