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.

Attorneys Kellie L. Howard-Goudy and Michael J. Cook obtained summary disposition on behalf of a public school district and the school itself, cutting off a multimillion dollar liability exposure. The plaintiff, arguing the case in Wayne County Circuit Court, asserted negligence and gross negligence claims based on a paralyzing injury he suffered during football practice. He claimed that the operation of the school football team was negligent and unauthorized. Howard-Goudy and Cook asserted and the Court agreed that the school district, which was an “educational authority” instead of a typical school district, was entitled to governmental immunity.