Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Welcome to the Michigan Auto No-Fault Law Digital Library

The Michigan No-Fault Act was adopted in 1973, and since then, there have been over 4000 Michigan appellate court opinions regarding the law. Sinas Dramis Law Firm has written case summaries regarding virtually all these opinions and continues to do so at the present time. The Michigan Auto No-Fault Law Digital Library is a compilation of all the case summaries from Sinas Dramis Law Firm. The case summaries are freely provided to further our goal of educating the public about the Michigan Auto No-Fault Law.

The Digital Library is fully searchable. Therefore, searching by case name or relevant terms is a good way to find the case summary and opinion. There is also an indexing system that allows you to find a case through a statutory indextopical indexalphabetical index, or chronological index.


To make it easy for the public to understand the latest developments in the law, the recent case summaries are listed below.

Recent Cases

Smith, et al v Auto Club Group, et al (COA – UNP 4/29/2021; RB #4250)

In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed a final judgment entered in Plaintiff Latrice Smith’s first-party action against Defendant Auto Club Group.  Auto Club Group (“Auto Club”) sought to rescind Smith’s automobile insurance policy after she was injured in a car crash by sending her a letter of rescission and refunding her premium through an electronic funds transfer.  Smith set the refund aside and did not use the funds andinstead filed the underlying action against Auto Club Group for unpaid PIP benefits.  Auto Club Group moved for summary disposition, arguing that Smith consented to the rescission because she received the premium refund and did not return it to Auto Club.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that reasonable minds could differ on the issue of whether Smith consented to the rescission based on the fact that she did not use the money refunded to her.

MemberSelect Ins Co v Flesher, et al (COA – PUB 4/29/2021; RB #4249)

In this unanimous published per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff MemberSelect Insurance Company’s (“MemberSelect”) motion for summary disposition in its underlying declaratory action against Defendant Nicholas Fetzer.  MemberSelect argued that Fetzer’s mother, who insured the vehicle Fetzer owned but never rode in it, did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle, and that her policy was therefore void.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that Fetzer did have an insurable interest in the vehicle by virtue of the fact that she was Fetzer’s mother, and that as Fetzer’s mother, her interest in her son’s physical and financial well-being gave her a sufficient insurable interest in the vehicle.

Saad, et al v Westfield Ins Co, et al (COA - UNP 4/22/2021; RB #4248)

In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits was barred by the insurance policy’s antifraud clause. In so holding, the Court clarified that the cases of HaydawMeemicFasho, and Williams have resulted in “significant change” to the law since the time the trial court granted summary disposition to defendant, and that, when taken together, the cases establish that “unless an insured’s fraud  results  in  a  substantial  breach  of  the  insurance contract, fraud provides a basis for the opposite party to a contract to rescind the contract only if the fraud occurred before the contract was signed and before litigation commenced.”

Psychiatry and Rehab Associates v State Farm Mutual Ins Co (COA - UNP 4/1/2021; RB #4243)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of whether a medical provider assigned rights by the injured policyholder was barred from bringing a separate suit for benefits on the basis of the injured policyholder’s release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata. In so holding, the Court noted that the Michigan Supreme court had long held that when an assignment of claims occurs after a lawsuit is filed, the assignor may settle or release those claims, precluding any further recovery by the assignee.

VHS of Michigan, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co (COA – UNP 4/1/2021; RB #4244)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) motion for leave to amend its affirmative defenses to plead fraud with particularity, and remanded for further proceedings.  State Farm asserted general fraud defenses in its answer to Plaintiff VHS of Michigan, Inc.’s (VHS) complaint, but uncovered considerably more evidence of fraud through discovery, thereafterseeking to amend its affirmative defenses to plead fraud with particularity.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying State Farm’s motion, because State Farm did not act with bad faith by waiting to amend its affirmative defenses, and because VHS would not be prejudiced by such an amendment.

Abdi v Progressive Michigan Ins Co (COA – UNP 3/25/2021; RB #4242)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appealsheld that Progressive was not legally obligated to pay PIP benefits to Plaintiff under MCL 500.3114(4)(a)because Progressive’s insured, JeffreyDraper and his trucking company,wereno longer the owners or registrants of the truck plaintiff was occupying at the time of the crash that occurred shortly afterplaintiff bought the truck from Draper. The Court further held that plaintiff was disqualified entirely from PIP benefitsunder the pre-2019 amended version of MCL 500.3113(c), because plaintiff was not a resident of Michigan, the truck was no longer registered in Michigan at the time of the accident, and plaintiff was not insured by an out-of-state insurer that was certified to sell insurance in Michigan under the pre-2019 amended version of MCL 500.3163

Zaiya v Encompass Indemnity Company (COA - UNP 3/25/2021; RB #4241)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals found that: (1) the circuit court erred in determining Plaintiff Zaiya’s domicile as a matter of law this case, because “Zaiya presented evidence that she resided in two separate households at the time of her accident; and (2) the circuit court correctly determined as a matter of law that Zaiya was not an “insured” under the language of her daughter, Renee’s, no-fault policy.

Henderson v City of Detroit, et al. (COA – UNP 3/18/2021; RB #4236)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant City of Detroit’s motion for summary disposition in which it sought dismissal of Plaintiff Christopher Henderson’s third-party action against it.  The Court of Appeals held that, although Henderson was at least partly negligent for attempting to change lanes without first ensuring that he could do so safely, he presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to whether Patricia Lauderdale, a bus driver for the City of Detroit, was more than 50% negligent by driving her bus in excess of the speed limit at the time it crashed into Henderson’s vehicle.

Johnson v Geico Indemnity Co (COA - UNP 3/18/2021; RB #4238)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s holding denying summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff committed fraud when seeking reimbursement for replacement services and attendant care and, therefore, barred from pursuing her claims for no-fault PIP benefits. In doing so, the Court noted that plaintiff’s submitted affidavits for attendant care and replacement services were inaccurate in that she claimed attendant care and replacement services took place while she was traveling without those she purported to be providing such care. Notably, in reaching its holding that the anti-fraud provision could be enforced to bar plaintiff’s claims for no-fault PIP benefits, the Court relied upon the decision in Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, and did not explain how Bahri allowed for this result following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Meemic Ins Co v Forston and the Michigan Court of Appeals recent decision in Williams v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co.

Pepaj v Allstate Insurance Company (COA – UNP 3/18/2021; RB #4239)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Plaintiff Gjok Pepaj’s first-party action for no-fault PIP benefits.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in ruling that Pepaj failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the medical treatments and attendant care he received were reasonably necessary for his care, recovery, or rehabilitation pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(a).

Sarah McClinton v Christopher Hartwell, et al (COA - UNP; 3/18/2021; RB #4240)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a “serious impairment of body function” necessary to meet the no-fault tort threshold. In doing so, the Court found that plaintiff failed to establish a physical basis for her complaints of shoulder and back pain.

Robinson, et al. v Progressive Michigan Insurance Company, et al. (COA – UNP 3/11/2021; RB #4234)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action and remanded for further proceedings.  The Court of Appeals held that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff’s employer, 313 Towing, LLC (“313”) was a constructive owner of the tow truck the plaintiff, Donald Robinson, was driving at the time of the subject crash.  If so, 313’s insurer, Progressive Michigan Insurance Company (“Progressive”), would be required to pay Robinson’s crash-related PIP benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3114(4)(a).

Anthony Lacascio v Farm Bureau Ins Co of Michigan (COA - UNP 3/11/2021; RB #4231)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the trial court’s denial of Defendant Farm Bureau’s Insurance Company of Michigan’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether Farm Bureau could deny plaintiff’s claims and rescind his father’s insurance policy on the basis of post procurement fraud by plaintiff. In so holding, the Court reasoned that based upon the Michigan Supreme Court’s holding in Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich 287; __ NW2d __ (2020), Farm Bureau could not enforce its anti-fraud provision to deny no-fault PIP benefits to the injured person because of acts of post-procurement fraud. 

Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Andrew Lynn Frantz (COA - UNP 3/11/2021; RB #4232)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation in the application for insurance made the policy void ab initio, but reversed the trial court’s declaration that the plaintiff had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant in the underlying tort suit and remanded to the trial court with instruction to conduct a hearing under Bazzi as to the defendant’s rights for defense and indemnification. The Court further vacated the trial court’s order rescinding the insurance policy and remanded the issue of recission to the trial court, instructing it to balance the equities concerning the injured passengers claim.

David E. Christensen, P.L.L.C v Pioneer State Mut Ins Co, et al (COA - UNP 3/4/2021; RB #4229)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant Pioneer and third-party defendant Hurley Medical Center on the issue of whether either was liable to plaintiff David E. Christensen, P.L.L.C. for its alleged attorney’s lien. In doing so, the Court held that neither defendant Pioneer or third-party defendant Hurley had actual notice of the lien, and that the funds due to Hurley were not part of a common fund generated by Christensen’s services.

Mustafa Almurisi v Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (COA - UNP 3/4/2021; RB #4226)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the issue of whether defendant was the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle for purposes of meeting the requirements of former MCL 500.3114(4)(a). In doing so, the Court clarified that it was compelled by the holding in Turner v Farmers Ins Exch, __ Mich __; 953 NW2d 204 (2021).

Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co (COA – UNP 2/25/2021; RB #4224)
In this unpublished 2-1 opinion (Judge Swartzle dissenting), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s holding in favor of the defendant, finding that the services provided by Insight Healing Center were not adult foster care services requiring corresponding licensure and were thus lawfully rendered within the meaning of the no-fault act, requiring payment of these services by defendant. 

Loiacana v Home-Owners Ins Co (COA - UNP 2/18/2021; RB #4222)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Universal on the issue of whether plaintiff was an insured under Universal’s policy and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Home-Owners ’s motion to amend its pleadings to assert a cross-claim against Universal for common-law indemnity. In reaching its holding, the Court found that the policy language of Universal unambiguously provided who was entitled to uninsured benefits, and that plaintiff was not among them. Because of this fact, the Court held that any amendment to the pleadings to permit  Home-Owners to assert a cross-claim against Universal for common-law indemnity would have been futile.

Michigan Spine & Brain Surgeons, PLLC v Home-Owners Ins Co (COA - UNP 2/18/2021; RB #4220)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant Home-Owners Ins Co on the issue of whether recission of the insured’s insurance policy was appropriate as against the plaintiff medical provider. In doing so, the Court found that the doctrine of res judicata barred the fraud claim against plaintiff Michigan Spine & Brain Surgeons, PLLC, because Home-Owners had previously failed to prevail on the fraud claim in a lawsuit between the injured person and Home-Owners, and as the injured person’s assignee, Michigan Brain & Spine possesses the same rights as Hosey, and therefore, is protected by res judicata from defendant’s fraud allegations in this case.

Covenant Med Ctr Inc v Employers Mut Cas Co, et al (COA - UNP 2/11/2021; RB #4218)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting in part plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of whether the claims of plaintiff Covenant Medical Center, Inc were barred by the one-year-back rule and dismissed plaintiff’s cross-appeal regarding attorney fees as moot. In doing so, the Court held that the holding in Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) clarifying that the healthcare-provider plaintiff could not obtain any greater right than the insured possessed on the date of the assignment was binding.

Midwest Med Assoc Inc v Liberty Mut Ins Co (COA - UNP 2/11/2021; RB #4219)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and upheld the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for case evaluation sanctions. In doing so, the Court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement to no-fault benefits by failing to properly add its billing manager to its witness list and failing to properly subpoena defendant’s claims adjuster. The Court further held that the trial court was permitted to rely on the interest of justice exception when denying defendant’s motion for case evaluation sanctions.

Roberts Orthopedic Servs v Allstate Ins Co (COA - UNP 2/4/2021; RB #4217)
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff’s claim was barred under res judicata, finding that the federal court’s order in Omar v Allstate Ins Co (Omar I), opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issues March 14, 2019 (Case No. 17-cv-13400), which granted summary disposition to defendant in a case based on the same accident at issue here, was controlling.

Turner by Sakowski, et al. v Farmers Ins Exch, et al. (SC – PUB 1/29/2021; RB #4245)
In this 4-2 decision (Clement concurring; Cavanagh and Viviano dissenting) featuring twopriority disputes between Defendants Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC (“Enterprise”)and Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Enterprise was not the insurer of highest priority under the no-fault act’s then-applicable priority rules (which were subsequently changed pursuant to the 2019 amendments).  Relying on its decision in Parks v Detroit Auto Inter-InsExch, 426 Mich 191 (1986), the Court read the phrase “owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied” in the former MCL 500.3114(4) to really mean “owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state.” Therefore, even though Enterprise was an authorized self-insured entity under the no-fault act and the owner and registrant of the two vehicles in questionit was not a priority insurer under the former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) because the two vehicles were neither registered in Michigan norrequired to be registered in Michigan.

Sefcik v Home-Owners Ins Co (COA - UNP 1/28/2021; RB #4214)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant to Home-Owners on the issue of whether plaintiff properly supplied notice to Home-Owners within one year of the accident. In doing so, the Court held that the loss notice form submitted by the named insured and the police report constituted proper notice, and that the nature of injury requirement was satisfied by ordinary language such as “headache,” as opposed to a specific medical diagnosis.

Matigian v Member Select Ins Co (COA - UNP 1/28/2021; RB #4215)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant on the issue of insurer priority, finding that the policy exclusions that excluded coverage to an insured driving an employer-owned vehicle in the scope of employment were a valid defense, that the mend the hold doctrine may not be used to broaden policy coverage to protect an insured against risks expressly excluded from the policy, and that equitable estoppel was inapplicable because plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant had misrepresented the terms of the policy.

Webb v Progressive Marathon Ins Co (COA - UNP 1/28/2021; RB #4212)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant Progressive’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of Progressive’s ability to rescind the insurance policy at issue based on fraudulent procurement by the plaintiff Webb’s mother and remanded the issue of whether plaintiff was an innocent third party in the fraudulent procurement of the policy. In doing so, the Court found that the evidence in the record was clear that plaintiff’s mother committed fraud in the procurement of the insurance policy at issue, and that a question of fact remained as to whether plaintiff participated in the fraudulent procurement of the policy.

Williams v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, (COA - PUB 1/28/2021; RB #4211)
In this unpublished 2-1 opinion (Judge Kelly dissenting), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant on the issue of whether defendant had properly voided plaintiff’s policy due to her violation of an antifraud provision by making false statements to defendant after her auto accident. In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent holding in Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, ___ Mich ___ (2020) (Docket No. 158302) that found antifraud provisions are invalid to the degree they apply to post procurement fraud.

Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich (COA - UNP 1/28/2021; RB #4213)
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court’s award of unpaid charges, interest, and attorney fees to plaintiff on the issue of whether defendant was liable to pay plaintiff’s charges. The Court of Appeals held that based on recent decisions regarding the evidence that is admissible regarding the reasonableness of charges under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), the case must be remanded back to the trial court for a new trial because defendant should have been allowed to present evidence of payment by third parties, such as Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurance regarding the issue of whether the provider charges at issue were reasonable under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).

Integrated Cognitive Rehab, LLC v Zurich American Ins Co (COA – UNP 1/21/2021; RB #4210)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s holding denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to payment of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). In doing so, the Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that its recreational therapy was reasonably necessary for the insured’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.

Lamb v Progressive Marathon Ins Co (COA - UNP 1/21/2021; RB #4209)
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for reconsideration in which the trial court overturned its denial of defendant’s motion for summary disposition regarding plaintiff’s entitlement to no-fault benefits.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on the basis that plaintiff failed to present any evidence in response to defendant’s motion to establish that her injuries were caused by the incident in question and that the trial court was within its discretion in refusing to consider the physician’s affidavit plaintiff submitted in response to defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

McCarthy v Akins, et al (COA – UNP 1/21/2021; RB #4208)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants Akins and Everest National Insurance Company on the issue of the validity of plaintiff’s insurance contract with defendant Everest and plaintiff’s ability to bring a tort claim against defendant Akins. In its holding, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that plaintiff’s material representations permitted Everest to rescind the insurance policy and that the recission barred plaintiff from tort recovery against either defendants.

Butrus v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (COA – UNP 1/14/2021; RB #4206)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s holding finding summary disposition for defendant on this issue of whether plaintiff was barred from recovering no-fault benefits in light of alleged misrepresentations by plaintiff following a 2017 auto accident. In doing so, the Court found that the trial court had failed to address whether plaintiff’s alleged misrepresentations barred her from recovering no-fault benefits based on fraudulent procurement of the insurance policy, or whether she was barred from recovering benefits based on the application of the fraud exclusion provision in the subject policy. Moreover, the Court found that to the extent the fraud exclusion policy applied to the alleged misrepresentation, the trial court failed to determine whether plaintiff was entitled to benefits as a party to the policy or on a statutory basis, which distinction the Court noted is particularly significant following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision inMeemic v Forston, ___ Mich __, __; __NW2d __ (2020) (Docket No. 158302) slip op.

Steven Smith v Pulkit Goenka (COA - UNP 1/7/2021; RB #4205)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.  In so holding, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the jury verdict that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident was not inconsistent with or unsubstantiated by the evidence.  The Court of Appeals also ruled that the trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing the admissibility of the determination of the Social Security Administration that plaintiff was not disabled.  The Court of Appeals also upheld the trial court’s ruling denying the plaintiff’s motion to produce the 1099 forms of the defense medical expert.

Rozenberg v Auto Club Group Ins Co (COA - UNP 12/29/2020; RB #4203)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the issue of Plaintiff’s entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits because a piece of a vehicle that struck Plaintiff’s car did not constitute “direct physical contact” necessary under the language of the policy.

Nelson v Owusu, et al (COA – UNP 12/22/2020; RB #4197)
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion (with Judge Krause concurring in part and dissenting in part), the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion that Defendant Progressive was entitled to rescind the insurance policy with respect to Plaintiff if she was not found to be an innocent third party and if the equities weighed in favor of recission. 

Brown v Debassige (COA – UNP; 12/22/2020; RB #4201)
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, summary disposition for defendant was reversed on the issue of serious impairment of body function because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which a jury can conclude that his claimed injuries affected his general ability to lead his normal life.

Settler v Auto Owners Ins. Co. and Auto Club Ins. Assoc. (COA – UNP 12/22/2020; RB #4200)
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court on the issue of whether the fraud provisions of Defendant’s insurance policy applied to Plaintiff in light of recently published holdings by the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals in Meemic and Haydaw.

Mich. Radiology Institute, PLLC v Farmers Ins. Exch. (COA - UNP 12/22/2020; RB #4202)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the holding of the trial court granting summary disposition to the Defendant on the issue of whether Plaintiff’s complaint failed to satisfy pleading requirements because the absence of the date of the accident in the complaint still sufficiently put Defendant on notice of the nature of the claim and did not deprive Defendant of its ability to amend its answer to include further affirmative defenses following discovery.

Estate of Donald Miller v Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. (COA - UNP 12/22/2020; RB # 4198)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of the trial court granting Defendant Nationwide’s motion for summary disposition denying liability on the basis that a higher-priority insurer existed because Plaintiff’s personal protection insurance was identifiable before he filed a claim for no-fault benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (Now, Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility).

Sterling Heights Pain Management, PLC v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich (COA – UNP 12/22/2020; RB #4196)
In this forthcoming per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant summary disposition on grounds that the Plaintiff healthcare provider was incorporated in violation of the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act (hereinafter MLLCA) because, consistent with Miller v Allstate Ins. Co., 481 Mich. 601; 751 N.W.2d 463 (2008), Defendant lacked standing to challenge whether Plaintiff was properly incorporated or organized.

Owen v Conto and State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/17/2020; RB #4195)
In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment granting defendants $172,984.70 in attorney fees and costs as case evaluation sanctions because there was no evidence to suggest the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees in an amount greater than what defendants’ counsel was actually paid and no basis that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ request for case evaluation sanctions.

Estate of Parks v Sandy and Pioneer State Mut Ins Co (COA – UNP 12/17/2020; RB #4194)
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary disposition filed by Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company (Pioneer), and remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiff’s third-party action against Pioneer on the basis of collateral estoppel.  After the subject motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff filed an action against the other driver involved in the collision, as well as Pioneer, for underinsured motorist benefits.  Pioneer and the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss without prejudice the plaintiff’s UIM claim, and the plaintiff’s case against the other driver proceeded to trial, ultimately resulting in a recovery of the other driver’s liability limits for the plaintiff.  After trial, the plaintiff attempted to reinstate its UIM claim against Pioneer, and Pioneer moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate its claim for UIM benefits was barred by collateral estoppel. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the subsequent action for UIM benefits would merely be a relitigation of the original lawsuit against the other driver.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookTwitterInstagram