Michael Pitts v. John Doe

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 21, 2018
Docket338475
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Pitts v. John Doe (Michael Pitts v. John Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael Pitts v. John Doe, (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MICHAEL PITTS, UNPUBLISHED August 21, 2018 Plaintiff,

and

LUCIA ZAMORANO, M.D., PLC,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,

OMIC, LLC, doing business as OAKLAND MRI,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v No. 338371 Wayne Circuit Court JOHN DOE, LC No. 15-010634-NI

Defendant,

STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

MICHAEL PITTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

LUCIA ZAMORANO, M.D., PLC, and OMIC, LLC, doing business as OAKLAND MRI,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

-1- v No. 338475 Wayne Circuit Court JOHN DOE, LC No. 15-010634-NI

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and CAVANAGH and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

SWARTZLE, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

With respect to Docket No. 338371, I concur in full. With respect to Docket No. 338475, I would affirm summary disposition in favor of defendant, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto), under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff made several material misrepresentations in his application for no-fault benefits, and the key issue on appeal is whether he made the misrepresentations knowing that they were false or recklessly, without knowledge of their truth. Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 424; 864 NW2d 609 (2014).

Plaintiff admitted that he signed the application, but that he did not recognize the handwriting in the application. He also admitted that he did not know who filled out the application and did not review it before signing it. By not reviewing the application, plaintiff clearly could not have knowledge of the truth of the statements made in the application. By not reviewing the application, by not recognizing the handwriting in the application, and by not even knowing who filled out the application, plaintiff clearly acted recklessly with regard to the truthfulness of the statements made in the application. Thus, I would hold that, as a matter of law, plaintiff made the material misrepresentations recklessly, without knowledge of their truth. Accordingly, I dissent in Docket No. 338475.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bahri v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance
864 N.W.2d 609 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Pitts v. John Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-pitts-v-john-doe-michctapp-2018.