Attorneys Patrick J. Walbridge and Scott J. Pawlak obtained summary disposition on behalf of a no-fault insurer in a subrogation claim for damage to a motorized wheelchair. The Plaintiff insurance company sought $30,000 from Defendant, based on the argument that the wheelchair was tangible property. Walbridge and Pawlak argued that the wheelchair should instead be considered a prosthetic device under the Michigan No-Fault Act, meaning that damage to it was compensable as a personal injury protection benefit. The Court engaged in a detailed analysis of this issue, which it acknowledged was one of first impression, and ultimately agreed with Defendant’s argument, dismissing Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice.

Attorneys Scott Pawlak and Brian Catrinar obtained summary disposition on behalf of a no-fault insurer for medical expenses arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, Plaintiff’s health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield (through an ERISA plan), reimbursed plaintiff’s healthcare providers at a reduced amount pursuant to their provider participation agreements. Plaintiff then sought the difference between the Blue Cross reimbursement rate and the amount billed by the providers. Defendant argued – and the Court agreed – that the providers were statutorily bound to accept the reduced payments from Blue Cross as payment in full for their services. The Court held that because the providers were not entitled to pursue the differential, Plaintiff had not “incurred” those amounts and was therefore not entitled to recover the differential.

Attorneys Ashley S. Dickey and MaryRachel Dysarz won a summary disposition motion in favor of an automobile no-fault insurer. Plaintiff, a medical provider, claimed to be entitled to medical expenses, interest, and fees totaling more than $140,000.00, incurred on behalf of a claimant who was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. Click on headline for full details.