Consolidated first-party & third-party no-fault action; Auto negligence; “Serious impairment of body function”; MCL 500.3135; McCormick v Carrier; Claim for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Fraudulent insurance act; MCL 500.3173a(4); Candler v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; The Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF)

Holding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he met the threshold serious-impairment requirement for his auto negligence claim, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-Pugh. It further held that defendant-Citizens, the insurer assigned to his PIP claim by the MAIPF, was properly granted summary disposition on the basis “plaintiff committed a fraudulent insurance act,” precluding him from recovering benefits. Thus, the court also affirmed summary disposition for Citizens in this consolidated first-party and third-party no-fault action. As to the third-party claim, it noted that plaintiff’s failure to respond to Pugh’s summary disposition motion made it difficult for him to support his argument that it was improperly granted. “Summary disposition is properly granted where, like here, the nonmoving party fails to present any evidence that a genuine issue of material fact exists.” While he contended “Pugh failed to present a credible argument in favor of summary disposition and” thus, he did not have a duty to respond to her motion, the court found “no merit in this argument. Pugh’s motion made arguments explaining why there was no genuine factual dispute as to specific issues and [it] was supported by ample documentary evidence.” The court noted that “Pugh presented objective medical records indicating that there was no physical basis for plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain. The relevant portions of plaintiff’s deposition testimony fail to rebut this evidence and instead set forth, at best, mere subjective complaints of pain.” As to his PIP claim, the court again did not see any merit in his assertion “that Citizens failed to present a credible argument such that [he] was not required to respond to the motion for summary disposition in order to survive it. Like Pugh, Citizens made arguments in its motion explaining why there was no genuine factual dispute as to specific issues and the arguments were supported by ample documentary evidence.” Citizens pointed to his testimony about “having difficulty playing with his children and needing assistance with cutting his hair and bathing his back, which [it] argued was false based on plaintiff’s medical records and the surveillance reports [it] procured. None of the evidence” it identified contradicted “its assertion that [his] testimony was false[.]” He also did not show how any evidence it relied on established a genuine factual dispute.