Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 326129; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Fort Hood and Boonstra; Non-unanimous, Per Curiam (with Judge Fort Hood dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Majority Opinion; Link to Dissent 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Discovery in Auto Liability Cases
CASE SUMMARY:
In this non-unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly granted defendant no-fault insurer's motion for summary disposition because plaintiffs failed to timely respond to defendant's request for admissions because the delay in responding was not inadvertent.
Plaintiffs filed a claim for no-fault benefits with defendant Auto Owners after being injured in an auto accident. When Auto Owners denied the claim, plaintiffs brought this action seeking benefits. Auto Owners filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a request for admissions and interrogatories. In the request for admissions, Auto Owners asked plaintiffs to admit they were not making claims for outstanding medical expenses, wage loss, outstanding replacement services or attendant-care payments. When plaintiffs failed to respond within 28 days, as required by MCR 2.312, Auto Owners filed a motion to have its request for admissions deemed admitted. After a hearing, the trial court granted Auto Owner's motion, reasoning that it had not received a response from plaintiffs regarding the motion. Answers to the request for admissions, however, were filed immediately after that hearing. The answers stated, "Unknown at this time. I am claiming all benefits I am entitled to under Michigan's No-Fault Act." Auto Owners then filed a motion for summary disposition based on plaintiffs' deemed admissions. In response, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their deemed admissions. The trial court denied plaintiffs' request to amend, finding the admissions were already deemed admitted. In so ruling, the trial court did not accept plaintiffs' attorney's argument that he had a problem with his computer and he did not receive the motion to deem the admissions admitted. Ultimately, the trial court granted Auto Owner's motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the failure to timely respond to the request for admissions was not inadvertent and excusable under the court rules.
In so ruling, the Court of Appeals explained that pursuant to Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683 (1983), a trial court must balance three factors when deciding whether a party may file late answers to a request for admissions:
• whether allowing the party to answer late "will aid in the presentation of the action."
• whether the requesting party would suffer any prejudice if the court allowed a late answer.
• whether or not the delay was "inadvertent."
Regarding the first two Janczyk factors, the Court of Appeals said they weighed in plaintiffs' favor:
"The admissions in question effectively ended this case. By not responding to the requests, plaintiffs admitted that they did not have any claims for medical expenses, wage loss, replacement services, or attendant care. These claims were the entire basis for their suit against defendant. Without these claims, the trial was eliminated on the merits. The second factor also weighs in favor of plaintiffs. At the time the trial court deemed the requests admitted, there were still several months remaining until the end of discovery. In addition, defendant had already deposed both plaintiffs .... Therefore, defendant would not have been prejudiced by allowing plaintiffs to amend their admissions."
However, regarding the third factor, the Court of Appeals said the delay in plaintiffs' counsel responding to the request for admissions was not inadvertent and, therefore, inexcusable. The Court stated:
"The answers to the request for admissions were delayed over one month after the 28-day deadline, and plaintiffs did not serve defendant with the answers to the request for admissions until after defendant filed a motion to deem the request for admissions admitted. Plaintiffs' attorney failed to provide a valid reason for the delay. In fact, plaintiffs' attorney provided absolutely no reason for the delay during the hearing on the motion to deem the request for admissions admitted."
The Court of Appeals further rejected the argument that plaintiffs' counsel was unable to answer the discovery requests because they were too extensive, noting there were "only four requests for each plaintiff." The Court also pointed out that plaintiffs' counsel did not request a time extension, "which undermines his argument that the failure to respond was inadvertent because of time constraints."
According to the Court of Appeals, the following conduct by plaintiffs' counsel demonstrated "a pattern of egregious neglect" that indicated the delay "was intentional, rather than merely inadvertent":
• failure to timely respond to the request for admissions;
• failure to respond to the motion to have the request for admissions deemed admitted;
• failure to file a response to the request for admissions before the hearing on the motion to deem the request for admissions admitted; and
• failure to appear at the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of the trial court's decision on defendant's motion for summary disposition.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concluded that summary disposition was properly granted for Auto Owners.
Judge Fort Hood dissented, finding the delay in responding should not have resulted in the dismissal of plaintiffs' case. The judge said:
"[W]hile the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this case demonstrates a pattern of neglect, the failure to respond within the 28-day period seems to simply be one in a number of inadvertent oversights, rather than an intentional act, as the majority opines. Overall, I am not convinced that punishing plaintiffs in this matter would be just, especially after weighing all of the factors."
