PLAINTIFF'S INCONSISTENT DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FAILS TO AVOID FINDING HE COMMITTED A FRAUDULENT INSURANCE ACT

Sarah E. Nadeau

In the published decision of Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___ (11/10/22), the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that, where a deponent’s testimony is inherently self-contradictory, a court may not, at the summary disposition stage, blindly assume that one statement is true and another is false. Without an objective basis for concluding one statement is true, such a conclusion constitutes an impermissible credibility assessment.

Plaintiff Bakeman was significantly injured in a motor vehicle accident, was hospitalized for weeks, and was then prescribed attendant care services twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Plaintiff’s mother-in-law at the time provided those services and filled out claim forms, which bore Plaintiff’s signature and were provided to Defendant, the insurer assigned Plaintiff’s claim by the MAIPF because Plaintiff was not an insured under any insurance policy. Defendant paid some of the attendant care bills but then stopped. Plaintiff filed suit.

Plaintiff testified that he received attendant care services eight hours a day, five days a week from March 29, 2019 through May 31, 2019. The claim forms he submitted, however, indicated he received twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Plaintiff’s testimony was unclear as to whether he signed each form, or whether his signature was copied onto each form, but it was clear that he had a chance to review the forms before submitting them. Defendant then filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that Plaintiff had committed a fraudulent insurance act by knowingly signing forms which contained false information concerning facts material to his claims. The Circuit Court agreed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the claim forms submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant as the insurer assigned Plaintiff’s claim contained false information concerning facts relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. The Court noted that the controlling statute, MCL 500.3173a, renders Plaintiff’s subjective intent irrelevant, requiring only that Plaintiff knowingly provided false material information. The Court further noted that the identity of the service provider is material to a person’s claim, such that Plaintiff knowingly signing claim forms identifying only one service provider, when more than one person provided services, was a fraudulent act. In addition, the Court found the inaccuracies in the claim forms were extensive, resulting in the MAIPF being billed for more than twice as many hours of service than were actually provided.

Finally, the Court addressed Plaintiff’s conflicting testimony regarding his signature on the forms. First, the Court found that if Plaintiff signed the forms, he is presumed to have known the content of those forms and the records established he had plenty of opportunity to review the forms before submitting them. Next, the Court adopted a case-by-case approach when analyzing arguably inconsistent deposition testimony finding that in this case, based upon Plaintiff’s testimony as a whole as well as the remainder of the record, reasonable minds could not differ that Plaintiff actually signed the attendant care forms. Thus, the trial court properly determined that Plaintiff signed the forms, even if based upon erroneous reasoning, and as a result Plaintiff committed a fraudulent insurance act.