Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 290522; Published
Unanimous (with Justice Hathaway not participating)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Forthcoming, Link to Order 
Link to COA Summary
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Attorney Fee Liens
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Order with Justice Hathaway not participating, the Supreme Court, after hearing oral arguments and considering the briefs of the parties, reversed in part and affirmed in part the Court of Appeals opinion below and held:
"This is an attorney fee dispute arising out of an action for benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. As the Court of Appeals implicitly recognized, the Detroit Medical Center (DMC) is not liable for plaintiff’s attorney’s fees under the no-fault act. We agree that plaintiff is responsible for payment of her attorney fees consistent with the contingency fee agreement. Consistent with the common-law American rule, the no-fault act generally requires each party to pay its own attorney fees. Plaintiff’s reliance on MCL 500.3112 is unavailing because that provision, which permits equitable apportionment of personal protection insurance benefits among payees, does not encompass an award of attorney fees to an insured’s counsel. However, the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the common-fund exception to the American rule was erroneous because no common fund was created.
Of concern to this Court is that the circuit court’s order, and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, could be mistakenly interpreted as extinguishing the DMC’s contractual right to payment for its services. We wish to make clear that this is not the case. No-fault benefits are “payable to or for the benefit of an injured person . . . .” MCL 500.3112. In this case, through settlement, the benefits were paid to plaintiff, and her attorney asserted an attorney’s charging lien over the settlement proceeds. Thus, the effect of this was only to settle claims as between the insurer, plaintiff, and her attorney. The circuit court’s order of dismissal pursuant to the settlement agreement did not have the effect of extinguishing the DMC’s right to collect the remainder of its bill from plaintiff. Such a result could not have been achieved without an explicit waiver, or at least unequivocal acquiescence, by the DMC, which was not obtained."
