Judge Warren of the Oakland County Circuit Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary disposition in a case where medical providers submitted assignments purporting to transfer their patient’s right to collect PIP benefits from two companies that were not Defendant. Plaintiffs argued that these assignments should allow them to bring a cause of action against Defendant, an automobile insurance company, because of its business relationship with the other companies. They claimed Defendant and the other companies were all essentially the same entity and it was just a clerical mistake that the assignments did not name Defendant. Judge Warren agreed with defense attorneys Patrick J. Walbridge and Kevin P. Moloughney, who argued that the assignments could not be construed as transferring any cause of action against Defendant that the patient might have possessed.

Attorneys Lauren A. Frederick and Brian A. Catrinar successfully obtained summary disposition in no-fault priority dispute between the plaintiff’s personal auto insurer and the insurer of a city-sponsored transportation van. At issue was whether the van at issue was being operated in the business transporting passengers pursuant to MCL 500.3114(2). Also at issue was the novel priority issue of whether the van fit the definition of a “bus” under the no-fault act, thereby triggering an exception to MCL 500.3114(2). Using the “primary purpose/incidental nature test,” Judge Chabot of the Oakland County Circuit Court held that the city-sponsored transportation van was being operated in the business of transporting passengers at the time of the accident, and that it did not qualify as a bus to trigger any of the exceptions set forth in MCL 500.3114(2). Therefore, the insurer for the city-sponsored van was first in the order of priority for payment of the plaintiff’s no-fault benefits.

Attorneys Kari L. Melkonian and Patrick J. Walbridge recently obtained two summary dispositions in Wayne County Circuit Court. The first was on behalf of a hotel in a case arising out of a slip and fall on water at a wedding reception. The other was on behalf of a restaurant in an implied warranty and food safety act claim arising out of dental injuries sustained from a foreign object in a salad. To read the full details of both, click on the headline.