Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #308685; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, K. F. Kelly, and Murray; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Intervention by Service Providers and Third-Party Payors in PIP Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to intervene, brought by the injured person’s medical providers, Southeast Michigan Hospital, in the injured person’s first-party lawsuit against his no-fault insurance company.
In this case, the injured person, Anthony Johnson, filed a lawsuit against his no-fault insurer to recover various claims for no-fault benefits arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in August 2008. After filing his lawsuit, Mr. Johnson signed a patient lien agreement with Southeast Hospital, granting the hospital a lien “against any judgment, settlements, or other recoveries, for any and all services provided” by the hospital. The lien further instructed that Johnson’s attorney would “withhold from any and all judgment, settlements, or other recoveries monies owed to Southeast prior to any distribution . . . .” In addition to Mr. Johnson signing this lien agreement, his attorney also corresponded with an attorney representing Southeast Hospital’s interest. The details of this correspondence are further described in the Opinion. In sum, Mr. Johnson’s attorney clearly assured Southeast Hospital’s attorney that he would include and protect their bill in Mr. Johnson’s first-party lawsuit.
Mr. Johnson’s case proceeded to case evaluation. However, Mr. Johnson’s attorney did not include Southeast’s bill as part of the claims presented at case evaluation. Following case evaluation, Mr. Johnson settled with his no-fault insurer for an amount that did not include payment for Southeast’s bill. Immediately upon learning that its bill was not included, Southeast filed a motion to intervene in the case. The trial court denied the motion to intervene on the grounds that Southeast “sat on their rights.”
The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Southeast’s motion to intervene. The Court of Appeals reasoned that pursuant to MCR 2.209(A)(3), Southeast had an interest in the “property or transaction” that was the subject of the underlying no-fault action. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Southeast did not intentionally delay its motion to intervene by sitting on its rights. Rather, Southeast had clear reason to believe that Mr. Johnson’s attorney would include its bill at case evaluation. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated in pertinent part:
“. . . Here, the record does not support that Southeast “sat on its rights.” Rather, Southeast had reason to believe that Geer would include its bill in case evaluation and settlement talks. In particular, on the day before case evaluation, Geer sent a letter to Southeast’s counsel representing that he was “pursuing claims” on Southeast’s behalf. Furthermore, Geer acknowledged that Southeast sent him copies of the medical bill, records, and a copy of the patient lien agreement. Nevertheless, contrary to the representations in his letter, Geer did not include Southeast’s unpaid medical bill in the case evaluation or settlement talks. Instead, Geer and Victoria General reached an informal settlement agreement without considering Southeast’s interests. Once Southeast learned that Geer did not include its bill in agreeing to terms of the settlement agreement, it timely moved to intervene two weeks later “
(footnote omitted)
