State RegulationsMI specificDifficulty 3/5
A producer in Sterling Heights knowingly submits a fabricated repair invoice to support a claim on her own policy. How does this conduct differ from an ordinary misrepresentation about a policy's benefits?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why A is correct
Knowingly presenting a fabricated document to obtain policy benefits is insurance fraud, a criminal offense under Michigan's insurance fraud act (M.C.L. 752.1003), in addition to violating the Insurance Code's fraud provisions (M.C.L. 500.4501 to 500.4511). By contrast, overstating a policy's benefits to a prospect is an unfair trade practice under M.C.L. 500.2005 — a regulatory offense handled by the director through DIFS rather than a criminal prosecution for a false claim.
Why the other options are wrong
- B) The fiduciary duty under M.C.L. 500.1207 concerns the handling of premium funds, not the truthfulness of documents submitted on a claim.
- C) Payment of a claim does not sanitize a fabricated invoice; knowingly submitting it is insurance fraud regardless of whether the insurer detects it before paying.
- D) A knowing false claim submission is criminal insurance fraud under M.C.L. 752.1003, so treating it as only a regulatory trade practice understates the exposure.
Memory hook
Fake a claim = criminal fraud; puff a policy = trade practice.