Not every claim belongs at the settlement table. Some belong in the crosshairs of a relentless investigation.

In Michigan No-Fault, “routine” is often a mask for sophisticated fraud involving staged/caused accidents.

What started as a standard rear-end collision quickly spiraled into a $480,000+ exposure, complete with:

• Stacking PIP claims for medical expenses.
• Extensive attendant care, wage loss, and replacement services claims.
• A significant UM/UIM demand.

While many would see a mounting liability, MBL Executive Partner Nadine Hammoud saw the red flags. Plaintiff was a passenger in his own vehicle when it was alleged an “unknown driver” abruptly cut them off, causing a rear-end accident. No injuries were reported on scene, but claims began to flood in claiming significant injuries.

Turning the Tide with Precision

Working hand-in-hand with #SIU, Nadine went back to basics—the loss event. The investigation unraveled the narrative:

• Forensic Evidence: Vehicle inspections revealed pre-existing damage and contact with stationary objects. Crash data retrieval confirmed that if contact occurred, it was below a 5 MPH threshold—too low to even record an event.
• The Human Factor: Through a relentless series of EUOs and Depositions, Nadine exposed the web by cross referencing every line of testimony against the documentary record. The Plaintiff initially denied knowing the other driver; but Nadine’s investigation proved they were related. In fact, the Plaintiff and the “at fault” driver were involved in a prior claim together. Even better? The co-defendant admitted the accident was likely “planned.”
• Aggressive Discovery & Surveillance: The “injured” Plaintiff was caught driving and walking without restrictions; despite testifying he hadn’t been behind a wheel since the accident and required 6 hours of attendant care per day. Financial records also proved Plaintiff’s wage loss claim was fraudulent.

The Result: Total Victory

Nadine didn’t just defend the file; she went on the offensive. By leveraging MCR 2.109 (a Motion for Security of Costs), she forced the Plaintiff’s hand.

• The Court ordered a $25,000 bond.
• The Plaintiff failed to post.
• Case dismissed with prejudice.

She repeated the strategy against the related provider lawsuit, who had equal involvement in the scheme, securing a second dismissal with prejudice and positioning the matters for attorney fee recovery under MCL 500.3148.

Outcomes like this don’t happen by waiting for fraud to reveal itself. They happen when your defense counsel has the tenacity to go looking for it, and the expertise to expose the entire network.