Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 68598; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Gillis, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 139 Mich App 565; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Attorney Fee Liens
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Fitzgerald, the Court of Appeals held that an attorney's lien based upon a contingent fee agreement was not enforceable against a no-fault insurer who had no actual notice of the lien or of circumstances suggesting the existence of a judgment or of some special agreement under which an attorney's lien would attach prior to judgment. The court held that under Michigan law, commencement of a lawsuit through an attorney does not necessarily show that an attorney's lien has attached. The court noted that a duty may arguably arise to make inquiry concerning the existence of an attorney's lien when a lawsuit is commenced through an attorney and this is coupled with other knowledge by the defendant, such as the fact that contingent fees are usual in a particular type of case or with a particular office. However, the record in this case was insufficient to show this special knowledge on the part of defendant. Once the defendant was formally put on notice that plaintiff’s attorneys had a lien on all PIP benefits, defendant began sending payment for those PIP benefits directly to plaintiff’s counsel as opposed to sending them directly to the medical providers. Based upon the record in this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that plaintiff was entitled to enforce the attorney's lien against the defendant no-fault insurer.
