Saqd v. Esurance: Court of Appeals Affirms Jury Verdict Denying Medical Expenses and Replacement Services Despite Awarding Wage Loss Benefits

By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq. The Seva Law Firm

Case: Saqd v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 368822 (Mich. Ct. App. July 15, 2026) (Unpublished)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Panel: Rick, P.J., and Murray and Borrello, JJ.

Decision: Affirmed — Per Curiam

Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court, Case No. 21-002082-NF

Read the full opinion here: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a0555/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20260715_c368822_78_368822.opn.pdf

1. Introduction

In Saqd v. Esurance, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict that awarded work loss benefits to the plaintiff but denied his claims for allowable expenses (medical bills) and replacement service expenses following a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff raised numerous claims of error on appeal — including challenges to late discovery production, surveillance video admission, jury voir dire limitations, revocation of medical provider assignments, improper closing arguments, expert witness qualifications, and inconsistent verdicts. The Court found that nearly every issue was waived because plaintiff failed to make timely objections at trial or failed to adequately brief the arguments on appeal. This case serves as a cautionary tale about the critical importance of preserving issues for appeal in no-fault litigation.

2. Facts

Khaleel Saqd was involved in a motor vehicle accident on December 27, 2019, when his brakes failed while driving to work, causing a collision with multiple vehicles. He was insured under a no-fault policy issued by Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company.

Saqd filed suit against Esurance, claiming entitlement to unpaid no-fault benefits including allowable expenses (medical bills), replacement service expenses, and work loss benefits. The case proceeded to a jury trial in Wayne Circuit Court.

At trial, several procedural disputes arose. Approximately two weeks before trial, Esurance produced an updated claims file of over 8,000 pages — significantly larger than the 2,000-page file previously provided. On the first day of trial, it was also revealed that surveillance video of the plaintiff had not been provided to plaintiff’s counsel, though defense counsel maintained it had been sent years earlier. Additionally, one week before trial, plaintiff executed a “Mutual Revocation of All Assignments” with ZMC Pharmacy, attempting to reclaim the right to present ZMC’s medical bills directly to the jury.

Following the jury trial, the jury awarded Saqd $5,600 in work loss benefits and $672 in interest but found that he had not incurred any allowable expenses or replacement service expenses. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied.

3. Issues

Plaintiff raised twelve separate issues on appeal, including:

1. Whether the trial court erred by not providing sufficient time to review an 8,000-page claims file produced two weeks before trial.
2. Whether surveillance video should have been excluded because it was not timely produced.
3. Whether the trial court improperly restricted voir dire questioning about potential juror bias toward people of Middle Eastern descent.
4. Whether plaintiff could present ZMC Pharmacy bills after executing a mutual revocation of assignments one week before trial.
5. Whether defense counsel made improper remarks during closing argument.
6. Whether defendant’s expert witnesses were properly qualified.
7. Whether the jury’s verdict was internally inconsistent — awarding wage loss but denying medical expenses.
8. Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on every issue, finding that plaintiff either waived or abandoned nearly all of his claims of error.

Claims file and surveillance video (Issues 1-2): Plaintiff’s counsel affirmatively stated at trial that there was no objection to the admission of both the full claims file and the surveillance video. The Court held that plaintiff waived these challenges under Braverman v. Granger, 303 Mich App 587 (2014). A party who expressly agrees to something at trial cannot take the opposite position on appeal.

Jury voir dire (Issue 3): Plaintiff conceded there was no on-the-record ruling denying the request to question jurors about potential bias toward people of Middle Eastern descent. The Court held that appellate review is confined to the record, and the burden of creating an adequate record falls on the appellant.

Revocation of ZMC assignments (Issue 4): This was the most substantively developed issue. Applying the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in C-Spine Orthopedics v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. (2025), the Court held that a mutual revocation of assignments executed one week before trial — without court approval or any formal litigation steps such as amending the complaint — was insufficient to reinstate plaintiff as the real party in interest for ZMC’s claims. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding the attempt untimely and prejudicial.

Closing arguments and demonstrative exhibits (Issues 5-6): Plaintiff failed to make contemporaneous objections at trial to either the alleged improper remarks or the undisclosed demonstrative exhibit. Both issues were waived.

Expert testimony (Issues 7-8): Plaintiff’s challenge to the qualification of defendant’s experts was waived because plaintiff failed to raise sufficiency-of-foundation objections during the depositions when they could have been cured. The challenge to Dr. Montoya’s testimony was not preserved and was inadequately briefed.

Inconsistent verdicts (Issue 9): Plaintiff argued the verdict was inconsistent because the jury awarded wage loss but denied medical expenses. The Court found the argument abandoned because plaintiff cited no legal authority and failed to develop the argument beyond conclusory assertions.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full and awarded costs to Esurance as the prevailing party. Of the twelve issues plaintiff raised on appeal, nearly all were found to be waived due to failure to object at trial or abandoned due to inadequate briefing. The jury verdict — $5,600 in work loss benefits with no allowable expenses or replacement services — stands.

6. What Does This Mean for Our Clients?

While this case resulted in an affirmance against the plaintiff, it contains critical lessons for anyone pursuing a no-fault claim in Michigan.

Preserve your objections — or lose them forever. The single most important takeaway from Saqd v. Esurance is that you must object at the time something happens at trial. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the admission of evidence at trial, then tried to challenge it on appeal. The Court was clear: if you say “no objection” at trial, you cannot complain about it later. This is why having experienced trial counsel matters — a missed objection can permanently waive a meritorious issue.

Late discovery production must be challenged immediately and aggressively. When Esurance dumped an 8,000-page claims file two weeks before trial and failed to produce surveillance video, those were potentially significant discovery violations. But instead of moving for sanctions, seeking an adjournment, or asking for exclusion of the evidence, plaintiff’s counsel let the evidence in without objection. If you receive a late document production, you must act — request a continuance, move for sanctions, or seek exclusion. Silence is consent.

You cannot unilaterally revoke medical provider assignments on the eve of trial. Under the Michigan Supreme Court’s C-Spine decision, a party who assigned their PIP claims to a medical provider cannot simply revoke those assignments and re-claim the right to present those bills at trial without court approval and proper litigation steps. If you have assigned your benefits to a provider, work with your attorney well in advance of trial to address any assignment issues.

Build your record — every objection, every ruling, on the record. Plaintiff claimed that certain objections were made but not transcribed. The Court could not consider them. Appellate courts can only review what appears in the trial court record. Make sure every important discussion happens on the record, not in sidebar conversations.

Jury verdicts that seem inconsistent may still stand. The jury awarded wage loss benefits but denied medical expenses. That may seem contradictory, but without developed legal argument and authority explaining why it is legally inconsistent, an appellate court will not disturb it. If you believe a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, your post-trial motion and appellate brief must be thorough and well-supported.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident and are fighting for your no-fault benefits, contact The Seva Law Firm. We know how to try these cases, preserve every issue, and protect your rights at trial and on appeal.

Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.