Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 329276; Unpublished
Judges Beckering, Sawyer and Saad; Unanimous, Per Curiam (with Judge Beckering concurring in the result only)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion; Concurring opinion:
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Payees of PIP Benefits – Service Providers as Payees [§3112]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving PIP reimbursement claims brought by medical service providers, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted for Farm Bureau Insurance because the providers’ claims were “derivative of” the injured party’s claims, and the injured party’s suit for PIP benefits had been dismissed.
Ester Hermez initiated a lawsuit against defendant Farm Bureau for PIP benefits. That lawsuit was dismissed after summary disposition was entered in favor of Farm Bureau. The Opinion does not state the basis for granting Farm Bureau summary disposition. Plaintiffs in this case, which were providers of medical, physical therapy, transportation and medical-supply services to Hermez, initiated their own lawsuit for PIP benefits against Farm Bureau.. Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition, asserting that Hermez’s initial lawsuit to recover PIP benefits had been dismissed and, therefore, plaintiffs’ action for reimbursement must also be dismissed. The trial court agreed with Farm Bureau and granted its summary disposition motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Dawoud v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, ____ Mich App ____ (2016). The Dawoud panel had held that a service provider’s claim for no-fault benefits is “derivative of” the injured party’s claim for PIP benefits, and where the injured party’s claim for PIP benefits is dismissed, the service provider’s claim should also be dismissed. Accordingly, because the injured person’s claim had been dismissed due to the injured person’s discovery violations, the injured person’s providers’ could not pursue a separate lawsuit, and their lawsuit was also dismissed.
In light of Dawoud, the Court of Appeals held:
“Here, there is no question that Hermez was barred from recovering PIP benefits. Her lawsuit to recover PIP benefits was dismissed in Case No. 13-016116-NF when the court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. The grant of summary disposition acts as an adjudication on the merits. … Thus, consistent with Dawoud and the other cited case law, because plaintiffs’ claims are derivative and because the underlying claim is barred, plaintiffs’ claims against defendant are likewise barred, and the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
