Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Sanford v Prudential Ins Co of America; (COA - UNP; 8/2/2016; RB # 3559)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 326591; Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, Hoekstra and Ronayne Krause; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 


STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues


CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving plaintiff's claim for attendant-care benefits that she provided her husband before he died, the Court of Appeals held the trial court wrongly granted the no-fault insurer's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim based on the husband's failure to comply with a court order in a prior lawsuit he had filed and which was dismissed by stipulation, because the failure to comply with the court order in that previous case had no bearing on the plaintiff's claim in this case.

Plaintiff's husband, Randall Sanford, was injured in an auto accident in 2001 and plaintiff provided him attendant-care services pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(a). In 2009, Randall was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, a condition that was unrelated to his car accident. Randall received attendant-care benefits from his no-fault insurer, defendant Prudential Insurance Company, through late 2011. Prudential then stopped paying attendant-care benefits, and Randall brought an action to collect payments. The trial court ordered an in-home medical evaluation to distinguish between the services Randall was receiving as a result of his auto accident injury, and the services he was receiving related to his cirrhosis. It was undisputed that Randall did not submit to the evaluation. Prudential moved for dismissal, based on Randall's failure to comply with the order. Before the trial court decided the motion, Randall and Prudential stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice. Randall subsequently died and plaintiff filed this action seeking payment for her attendant-care services from April 22, 2013, to December 5, 2013, totaling $109,440. Prudential filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted. The trial court held that, due to Randall's failure to comply with the court-ordered evaluation and the fact that compliance would be impossible due to Randall's death, plaintiff's claim could not continue due to procedural deficiencies.

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court erred in granting Prudential's motion for dismissal because it improperly considered Randall's failure to comply with a court order in the previous case, which was not related to the case at hand.

The Court of Appeals explained that in the suit brought by Randall, the parties stipulated to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which meant the trial court did not make a decision on the merits of the case. "Therefore, a party's failure to comply with an order associated with the previously dismissed case has no bearing on the pendency of the litigation at hand," the Court said.

According to the Court of Appeals, the trial court failed to determine whether plaintiff could present a prima facie case using an alternative method, rather than the previously ordered home evaluation, and it wrongly found that the home evaluation was the only way for her to do so. The Court stated:

"If the home evaluation would have been an explicit requirement under the terms of the insurance policy, [Prudential] would have a valid argument for dismissal based on procedural impossibility; however, that is not the case here and the evaluation was merely part of a discovery order of a case later dismissed. [Prudential] cannot ask the court to make a decision in this case based solely on evidence presented and discovery ordered in previous litigation when defendant agreed to dismissal of that case without prejudice."

Therefore, based on the limited evidence in the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was unable to make a judgment on the merits of plaintiff's claim and the trial court "must allow plaintiff to properly present her case."


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram