Cannon v. Farm Bureau Insurance (Case 50.2)
Cannon v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. Court of Appeals of Michigan, 2019 WL 845863 (2019).
Background and Facts Ida Cannon was injured in an auto accident while operating a vehicle owned by Ivy Harp. Cannon was hospitalized for nine days. Because she did not own a vehicle and was not covered under any other policy, she submitted a claim for benefits to Farm Bureau Insurance Company, the insurer of Harps vehicle. In her application for benefits, she claimed that she had been employed at the time of the accident as an events coordinator for Elite and Fabulous Events. After Cannons discharge from the hospital, Harp filed a claim for attendant care services that she and her daughter, Dianna Lewis, had provided to Cannon. Farm Bureau discovered that some of the claims were fraudulentfor instance, Harp claimed to have provided services while she was on vaca-tion in Aruba, and Lewis claimed to have provided services when she was in the hospital giving birth. As a result, Farm Bureau cut off Cannons benefits. Cannon filed a suit in a Michigan state court against the insurer to recover on her claims. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied. Farm Bureau appealed.
Decision and Remedy A state intermediate appellate court reversed the lower courts order denying Farm Bureaus motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for appropriate findings regarding fraud with respect to the claims for attendant care services filed by Harp and Lewis.
Read Case 50.2: Cannon V. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. and then respond to the Critical Thinking: Legal Environment prompt.
A Michigan state statute entitles Cannon to certain benefits that cannot be precluded by Harp and Lewiss fraud under the policys fraud-exclusion clause. Can Farm Bureau nevertheless challenge the sufficiency and credibility of Cannons entitlement to recover any benefits by offering evidence to justify its denial of recovery? Explain.
