Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 331654; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Murphy and Meter; Unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons/Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held defendant Progressive Insurance (“Progressive”) was properly granted summary disposition on the insured’s claim for wage-loss benefits because plaintiff Randy Hatfield (“Hatfield”) failed to respond with evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. However, the Court remanded for clarification as to whether the trial court intended to dismiss the insured’s entire claim under the no-fault policy’s fraud provision, or only the wage-loss claim.
After being injured in an auto accident, Hatfield filed this action claiming that Progressive, his no-fault insurer, unreasonably and wrongfully refused to pay PIP benefits. Although Hatfield had been unemployed for an extended period of time, he had sought wage-loss benefits, claiming that he was scheduled to start a new job as a painter one day after his accident. To support this, Hatfield submitted a “Request for Verification of Employment” form to Progressive. The attestation attached to the form supported Hatfield’s claim about starting the new job and was signed by a person who purportedly co-owned the company for which Hatfield was to begin working. Hatfield’s deposition testimony also supported his claims. Progressive moved for summary disposition on Hatfield’s claim, providing deposition testimony from the owner of the painting company stating, among other things: 1) he was the sole owner, 2) he never offered Hatfield a painting job and 3) the person who signed the attestation on the form did not have authority to offer Hatfield a job. The trial court granted Progressive’s motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that Hatfield did not respond to Progressive’s motion by submitting evidence that “set forth specific facts at the time of the motion showing a genuine issue for trial.” The Court explained that the unsworn Attestation was insufficient to rebut Progressive’s evidence. Further, Hatfield did not present any contradicting evidence to Progressive, but instead stated that he wanted to “go off of . . . [the owner’s] deposition.” The Court agreed with the trial court that this was not evidence that contradicted the owner’s testimony and without such evidence Hatfield’s action could not be supported. The trial court however was unclear regarding which claim it was dismissing: Hatfield’s wage-loss claim or his entire claim. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for clarification regarding which case was being dismissed.
Under the circumstances, the trial court correctly found that there was simply no basis on which to grant wage-loss benefits. However, after explicitly stating on the record that it was granting the motion for summary disposition regarding wage-loss benefits and also stating that if plaintiff was misled, it was ‘not anybody’s fault,’ the court went on to enter an order granting [Progressive’s] motion in full and dismissing the entire case with prejudice. In defendant’s motion, it had argued for a dismissal of plaintiff’s entire civil action (which referred to additional monies aside from wage loss) based on fraud. On this record, there is a contradiction between the trial court’s oral ruling and its written order, and we therefore remand this case for further proceedings and clarification regarding whether the trial court intended to dismiss plaintiff entire claim based on fraud or whether it intended merely to dismiss the claim for wage-loss benefits.
