Attorneys Lauren Frederick and Brian Catrinar, both members of Collins Einhorn’s General and Automotive Liability Group, recently obtained a defense verdict in a Wayne County first-party no-fault case. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, finding that plaintiff’s claim of accidental bodily injuries did not arise out of the automobile accident at issue. To learn more, click on the headline.

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.

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.