Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #300229; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Sawyer, and Shapiro; per curiam; Judge Shapiro concurring
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
On October 4, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED Application for Leave to Appeal; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Intentionally Suffered Injury [§3105(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, with Judge Shapiro concurring in result only, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding payment to Bronson Methodist Hospital for the expenses incurred for the treatment it provided a person injured in a motor vehicle accident. The court held that Auto-Owners did not properly raise the issue of whether she was disqualified on the basis that her injuries were intentionally suffered, in order to disqualify her from no-fault benefits. Further, the court disagreed with Auto-Owners that the injured person should have pursued no-fault benefits from Home-Owners Insurance Company, as opposed to Auto-Owners.
The injured person in this case, April LaFountain, attempted to commit suicide on April 14, 2008. She drove her car to a dirt road, parked, and ingested a great quantity of anti-depressants. She intended to fall asleep and die. However, before falling asleep, she changed her mind and decided she would rather die in a different location. She then began to drive away. Her intent was to drive to a different location, park, fall asleep and die. However, during the drive to this new location, she blacked out. Her car went off the road and struck a large tree. There were no signs of evasive action. Furthermore, the police officer investigating the accident determined that the crash was consistent with both a person intentionally crashing their car or a person passing out and drifting off the road. Ms. LaFountain survived the accident and suffered serious injuries. She was treated at Bronson Methodist Hospital and her total medical bills totaled approximately $53,000.
On appeal, Auto-Owners first argued that it was not liable to pay Ms. LaFountain's no-fault benefits because she intentionally suffered her injuries. The Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with the trial court that Auto-Owners failed to properly raise this issue before the end of trial and, therefore, the issue was not proper to address on appeal.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's rejection of Auto-Owners argument that the plaintiff should have sued Home-Owners Insurance Company as opposed to Auto-Owners Insurance Company. The court concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could have interpreted the communications from Auto-Owners to suggest that Auto-Owners and Home-Owners were the same company. Because Auto-Owners did not offer any evidence to refute the trial court's conclusion that Auto-Owners and Home-Owners were the same company, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling on this matter.
