Attorneys Kevin P. Moloughney and Scott J. Pawlak won summary disposition in Wayne County Circuit Court for defendant insurer in first-party No Fault case. Successfully moved for dismissal of Plaintiff’s entire claim, pursuant to the fraud exclusion of the insurance contract, based on Plaintiff’s fraudulent representations regarding his wage loss claim. More than $650,000 in first-party benefits were extinguished as a result of the decision.

A Wayne County jury returned a no-cause-of-action verdict in favor of a no-fault insurer on January 19, 2017. Plaintiff was an occupant of an automobile insured by defendant that was involved in an accident on May 14, 2014. Defendant, represented by Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorney Kyle N. Smith, argued that the expenses and benefits claimed by plaintiff were not related to the automobile accident. After almost two hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict. Click on headline for full details.

Attorneys Kevin P. Moloughney and Charles W. Wojno won a summary disposition in a Genesee County Circuit Court in first-party no-fault benefit case. Plaintiff claimed benefits arising out of a motor vehicle accident, including medical expenses, lost wages, and household services. Plaintiff was employed as a chiropractor at his wife’s chiropractor business, and treated with his wife following the accident. The documentation submitted by Plaintiff in support of his claims exposed fraud in his claim for lost wages and household services. A motion for summary disposition was filed on behalf of the insurer arguing plaintiff’s claims were fraudulent under the Michigan Court of Appeals case Bahri v IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., 308 Mich App 420 (2014) The Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.

Attorneys Scott J. Pawlak and Kevin P. Moloughney won summary disposition in Wayne County Circuit Court for insurer in first-party No Fault case. The Court agreed with defendant insurer that a Plaintiff daughter’s claim under her mother’s automobile insurance policy that had been previously rescinded was barred by the collateral estoppel and collateral attack doctrines. The Court further found that there was no factual development that could result in PIP coverage under the policy, and Plaintiff’s claims were therefore dismissed with prejudice.