Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 340923; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Stephens, and Riordan; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Assignments of Benefits – Validity and Enforceability
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision involving assignments of rights to no-fault PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals determined that decedent’s medical providers’ amended complaints were actually supplemental pleadings and did not relate back to the filing dates of the original complaints. Therefore, the controlling date for purposes of the one-year-back rule is the date the assignments were executed. Since the assignments were executed more than one year after decedent’s last treatment, Plaintiff medical providers’ claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.
In March of 2015, Decedent Lanell Oliver was struck by a motor vehicle while walking across the street at a crosswalk, and later submitted a claim for no-fault PIP benefits to the at-fault driver’s insurance company, Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. In July of 2016, Oliver and his medical providers filed suit against State Farm, and then in September of 2016, Oliver died. In May of 2017, the Supreme Court decided Covenant, and in August of 2017, Plaintiff healthcare providers received an assignment of benefits from the personal representative of Oliver’s estate. Plaintiffs tried to move the trial court for leave to amend their complaints to reflect the assignments, but the trial court denied their motions “on the grounds that amendment would be futile.”
The trial court first determined that the assignments were barred by an anti-assignment clause in State Farm’s policy with the at-fault driver. The Court of Appeals disagreed because such anti-assignment clauses were deemed a violation of public policy in the Court’s decision in Shah.
The Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions, however, because the amended complaints would actually be supplemental pleadings, and supplemental pleadings do not relate back to the dates of the original complaints. The relevant date for determining the one-year limitations period, therefore, is the date that the assignments were received. Since the assignments were received more than one year after Plaintiffs’ last treatments, Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.
“[A]n assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and acquires the same rights as the assignor possessed.” Professional Rehab Assocs v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 228 Mich App 167, 177; 577 NW2d 909 (1998). According to Shah, the date of the assignment is the controlling date for purposes of applying the one-year-back rule. 324 Mich App at 205 (“Through the assignment, plaintiffs only obtained the rights Hensley actually held at the time of the execution of the assignment . . .”). In the case of each healthcare provider, the last date of treatment was more than one year before the date of the assignment. As assignees, the healthcare providers were “entitled to recover only and just as . . . [the] assignor, might had no assignment been made.” Ward v Alpine Tp, 204 Mich 619, 631; 171 NW 446 (1919). Thus, even had the decedent filed a direct cause of action, for example on September 28, 2017, he would not be entitled to recover any benefits for treatment he received from Summit before September 28, 2016. The same conclusion is reached for each healthcare provider.
