Mona Powell sued for gross negligence, Renald Powell sued for an explanatory judgment to confirm her right to damages under the Farm Bureau's insurance policy with Mona Powell. The Farm Bureau moved for a brief disposition because there had been fraud in the underlying lawsuits. The Court of First Instance initially denied defendant's motion for summary disposition, but upon reconsideration considered that Renald was a participant in Mona's fraud to recover benefits under the policy, and therefore defendant's obligation to reimburse Renald was limited to the minimum amounts required by Michigan's financial responsibility. "Mona now appeals, and Renald appeals, to the right.
In Renald Powell, and Mona Powell, also known as Mona Lockett v. Farm Bureau Insurance Company, No. 344004, Michigan State Court of Appeals ( May 1
In August 2014, Mona and plaintiff Renald Powell purchased a company no-fault car insurance for Momo & # 39; s Transport (a planned but non-existent business) from the Farm Bureau, which insured a Chrysler 300 and another vehicle. around with a limit of $ 1,000,000. On November 28, 2014, the Renald Chrysler vehicle drove with Mona as a passenger. A vehicle driven by Kristal Scott hit the Chrysler side. After the accident, Mona was treated in a hospital. In the following months, Mona received treatment from her primary care physician and the Michigan Brain and Spine Institute. She was referred for physical therapy. She filed claims with the Farm Bureau for Personal Injury Benefits (PIP), including medical benefits, compensation services and 24-hour care provided by Shanique Hodge, Jimmie Ford and Renald's son, Loren Miller.
The Farm Bureau's proposal for a brief disposition of Mona's claims to the first party on the basis of its decision that she filed fraudulent claims for health care benefits for thereby weakening and thereby void coverage under the policy.
ANALYSIS & EVIDENCE OF FRAUD
In addition to evidence submitted for the first party's claim, the defendant submitted additional evidence in support of its argument that Renald was also a participant in that fraud, which, defendant argued, invalidated Renald's claim liability. The Court of First Instance relied on both sets of evidence to independently find in this case that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning Mona's fraud and Renald's participation in that fraud.
Mona's claims for health benefits were fraudulent because the evidence showed that caregivers did not arrive at Mona's house on several days when she claimed to provide caregivers. The Court of First Instance held that Head's position did not raise a question of fact because it was "blatantly" contradicted by the video evidence.
here is no evidence that Hodge accessed the Powell House in a way that could have avoided the video. The video tells a different story than the one that the caregiver Hodge posed. Rather than show Hodge arriving at the Powell house, which she described every day at 8pm. and leaving as she described at 8am, no activity can be seen. The videos do not show anyone walking across Powell's garden to their fence and no car is seen picking Hodge or dropping her. Based on the surveillance videos, the court was forced to conclude that the claims made by Hodge, Mona and Renald that she came to the Powell house to provide care services to Mona every day are obviously false.
But if this inconsistency alone wasn't enough, the video also fails to show Ford's supposedly frequent visit to the Powell House. Neither Mona nor Renald has given any explanation for the absence of a video recording showing Renald's alleged morning departures to retrieve Ford, Renald's return to the house with Ford or Renald and Ford's departure for work. This absence is significant because the video shows Renald and other people leaving and entering the house through the front door and using the garage and driveway to get in and out of their vehicles.
The Court concluded that it is not a matter of Renald's participation in Mona's fraud that Mona falsely represented that she insured vehicles that would be used in a transportation business to achieve the $ 1,000,000 liability limit. Renald allegedly supported this scheme by signing the application. The only reasonable conclusion regarding Momos Transport is that the company was a fiction.
Renald's testimony of the cared-for Ford and Hodge allegedly provide Mona establishes his cooperation in Mona's false notions of care. Renald made these statements after the Farm Bureau ended Mona's PIP fraud coverage, with the obvious purpose of confirming the accompanying log to reinforce Mona's first-party claims for benefits without fail.
The video clearly shows that the claims made by Hodge and Ford as monitors to Mona are false. The decision of the Court of First Instance that Renald committed insurance fraud by trying to support Mona's claim for care was really within the scope of principle results.
UNPUNISHED FOR ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD COURT
The Court felt compelled to comment on what appear to be erroneous statements in the brief filed by Renald's Appellate Attorney, Melissa Stewart as follows:
In her statement, she argued attached 16 "still images" of the defendant's surveillance video to his appeal. Specifically, Stewart argued that the surveillance video "definitively states that the vantage point of [which] surveillance was made directly in front of Powell's home, giving the investigator and / or camcorder a clear view of Powells" only the front door and garage door. "But Stewart's video stills and her statement about what could be seen on the surveillance video were not accurate. … Yet Stewart cropped all 16 of the video footage in an obvious attempt to mislead us about what was actually shown in the surveillance movies; significantly, her card never references it By reading the card, one could easily assume that each of the "video stills" was simply a single frame, but more, extracted from the video. Even a casual observation of the "video snapshots" shows that this is not the case, especially when combined with the text of the brief description alleged restrictions on what video surveillance shows. In fact, the restrictions on what video surveillance shows in "video stills" only occurred because these still images were cropped and relevant parts were removed. this was an attempt to mislead us, especially considering that all 16 video still images were cropped, which created the limitations we have discussed. In light of these facts, we could easily conclude that the decision to attach the cropped video images was not a mistake, which would of course be unacceptable. (Emphasis added)
The court, for reasons difficult to understand, after that recitation, gave the lawyer who produced cropped and counterfeit documents to her essay, the benefit of the doubt and, other than deciding against her client, sanctioned not her for trying to deceive the court.
The fraud was clear and unambiguous to Michigan and the High Court. The fact that Renald's lawyer tried to deceive the court in a way that was obvious to the courthouse and the courthouse is worrying. If in fact lawyers who were intended to deceive the Appeal Court, she would have been disciplined. The court gave her the benefit of the doubt and concluded that she did not intend to mislead the court. A very lucky lawyer who worked unsuccessfully to help a fraud offender fraud the Farm Bureau.