In the matter of Aric Holloway v Memberselect, Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, Court of Appeals Docket 367611, Shareholder Mark Nawrocki of Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle, PC successfully argued on behalf of Citizens in Plaintiff’s appeal.
Plaintiff/Appellant Aric Holloway was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended and the driver of the other vehicle fled the scene on foot. As a result of the motor vehicle accident, Holloway filed a claim with the MAIPF and attested that the information contained therein was true and accurate. The MAIPF assigned this matter to Citizens. It was learned that during Discovery, Holloway made several false statements to Citizens regarding his claim. Those false statements included: 1) the address that he lived at the time of the motor vehicle accident, 2) identity of people in the household, 3) whether there were vehicles in the household, 4) whether there was insurance in the household, 5) replacement and attendant care calendars completed by an individual that did not know Holloway, and 6) claiming replacement and attendant care benefits for February 29, 30, and 31 in a non-leap year. Based on these facts, Citizens filed a dispositive motion to which Holloway responded arguing clerical errors and did not knowingly make a false statement which was granted by the trial court. Memberselect filed a dispositive motion arguing that Holloway’s father opted out of allowable expenses coverage, which was granted by the trial court.
Holloway appealed and initially relied upon the Court of Appeals decision in Williamson v AAA, which held that misrepresentations made during litigation did not constitute false statements under Sec 3173a(4). Holloways reliance on Williamson was moot as the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision. Holloway argued that his cognitive deficits prevented him from making a knowingly false statement, but the Court found there was no evidence to factually support this argument. Lastly, Holloways argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to his testimony and the testimony of the service provider. However the Court found this argument uncompelling.
Because Holloway appealed an order that was not a final order and the matter did not resolve until months after Citizens’ dispositive motion was granted, Citizens argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction as there was no express reservation of the right to appeal. Citizens relied on Sandoval v Farmers, that held an Appellant could not challenge an earlier order if it consented or stipulated to the final order, unless the stipulation allows an appeal, was moot as the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision finding an aggrieved party may raise on appeal issues arising from an earlier order relating to one party, even if a later, stipulated order of dismissal as to another party does not contain a reservation of the right to claim an appeal from the earlier order and concluded that this case was incorrectly decided.” Citizens presented the same factual misrepresentations as in the trial court and that knowingly providing a false statement does not include intent, which is an element of “fraud,” and is commonly the higher standard in cases involving an insurance policy.
The Court agreed and affirmed the trial court’s granting of MAIPF’s dispositive motion.