 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Maroki9/24/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appeal as of right from the judgment. We affirm.
Defendants, who are brothers, obtained an insurance policy from plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company, on defendant Yasser's leased vehicle. Defendant Nail signed the application and Yasser was not listed as a driver on the policy. Later, defendants were involved in an automobile accident. As a result, the vehicle was a total loss and defendants sustained injuries. Defendants filed a personal injury protection claim under the insurance policy for medical expenses and for uninsured motorist benefits. After paying off the vehicle, plaintiff received the title and discovered that Yasser, not Nail, was the lessee of the insured vehicle. Plaintiff conducted an investigation and determined that defendants were not properly insured. Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief, alleging fraud in the application of insurance and material misrepresentations/fraud in pursuing the claim. The trial court conducted a jury trial and the jury found, among other things, that Nail had no insurable interest in the vehicle, that Nail intentionally made a material misrepresentation when he applied for the insurance, and that defendants intentionally concealed or misrepresented material facts when making a claim under the policy. Thereafter, the trial court declared the insurance policy and all claims for benefits under the policy void and entered a judgment against defendants.
On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning plaintiff's burden of proof on the fraud claim, and that this error prejudiced defendants. The trial court instructed the jury that plaintiff had to prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by clear and convincing evidence. Because whether the trial court's instruction on the burden of proof was proper presents a question of law, our review is de novo. Hilgendorf v St John Hosp & Medical Ctr Corp, 245 Mich App 670, 694-695; 630 NW2d 356 (2001).
In Mina v General Star Indemnity Co, 218 Mich App 678; 555 NW2d 1 (1996), rev'd in part on other grounds 455 Mich 866 (1997), this Court addressed the standard of proof issue. In Mina, supra at 680, the insurer denied the insured's claim for fire insurance coverage on the basis of fraud, false swearing, and arson. Thereafter, the insured brought suit against the insurer for payment under the policy and the insurer raised fraud, false swearing and arson as affirmative defenses to preclude recovery. Id. The trial court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v Great Lakes Ins Co, 228 Mich 636, 638; 200 NW 457 (1924), which also involved an insurer alleging fraud and false swearing as an affirmative defense, instructed the jury that the insurer must prove its fraud and false swearing defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Mina, supra at 681. On appeal, the insured argued that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury because the more recent Michigan case law held that the burden of proof in fraud cases was by clear and convincing evidence. Id. After analyzing the apparent confusion in Michigan law regarding the proper standard of proof, this Court upheld the jury instruction requiring that the plaintiff prove by fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that it was not improper for the trial court to rely on Campbell, supra. Mina, supra at 685. In so deciding, this Court stated:
nless and until the Supreme Court offers us additional guidance on this issue, we cannot find that the trial court erred in relying on Campbell . . . . In Campbell, the Su
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|