Posts in Fraud Activity.
Recent arrest shows Michigan getting serious about limiting fraudulent auto liability claims.
Comments
Appellate court rules plaintiff has burden of proof in Michigan No-Fault case to demonstrate forgery of attendant care forms.
This plaintiff’s party life style resulted in the Michigan appellate court upholding dismissal of her PIP case due to fraud.
Appellate court upholds grant of summary disposition in fraudulent PIP and uninsured motorist case.
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Auto Liability
- Transportation
- Fraud Activity
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Civil Litigation
- Insurance
- Premises Liability
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Bankruptcy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
Recent Updates
- Protecting Insureds or Complicating Michigan Claims Adjusting?
- Choices: Applying Tousignant to a PPO Policy
- Michigan Steps up Efforts to Police Auto Liability Insurance Fraud
- Court Clarifies New Tolling Provision of Michigan No-Fault Act
- Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of MAIPF Claimant’s No-Fault Action Based on Fraudulent Attendant Care Forms
- Appellate Court Rules 2019 Michigan No-Fault Law Amendments Not Retroactive, Violate State’s Constitution
- Shop Talk – July Auto Liability Update
- Appellate Court Rules No-Fault Policy Can't be Coordinated With Health Care Ministry Program
- Michigan Court of Appeals Reaffirms Assignor’s Settlement of No-Fault Benefits is Binding on Assignees Unless Insurer Receives Notice of Assignment
- Shop Talk - June Auto Liability Update