COURT OF APPEALS UNTANGLES A WEB

In Dairyland Ins Co v Cameron Mews, et al, the Michigan Court of Appeals consolidated five appeals arising out of three separate lawsuits regarding no-fault PIP benefits for Cameron Mews. Mews, who was injured in an October 14, 2010 motorcycle accident, is a tetraplegic who requires around the clock nursing and attendant care. Mews receives services from Intensive Case Management as well as Diversified Home Health Care. Dairyland is the no-fault insurer responsible for benefits, and the MCCA is involved as Mews claims’ have exceeded the statutory threshold.

Dairyland was first to file suit in Oakland County. But, it was not until October 6, 2021, that Dairyland filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint, partly to add ICM as a Defendant.

Conversely, Mews’ service providers filed suit against Dairyland and the MCCA in the Wayne County Circuit Court while Dairyland’s motion for leave to amend was pending. In addition to claiming past due benefits, both providers claimed that the MCCA tortiously interfered with a business relationship by leveraging its position as reimbursement agency to reduce the rates paid for Mews’ care and that Dairyland and the MCCA violated the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act by denying or reducing Mews’ claims because both ICM and Diversified are African-American owned companies not entitled to the same rates for the same or similar service as a white-owned company.

Two weeks later, the Oakland County Circuit Court granted Dairyland’s motion for leave to amend and on October 27, 2021, Dairyland filed its amended complaint naming ICM as a Defendant.

Cleverly, ICM filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(6), arguing dismissal was proper as the Oakland County Circuit Court case now involved the exact same parties as ICM’s case in the Wayne County Circuit Court, and the same issue, entitlement to No-Fault benefits, would be adjudicated.

In turn, Dairyland filed MSDs pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(6) in ICM and Diversified’s Wayne County cases.

The Oakland County Circuit Court denied ICM’s MSD. Meanwhile, the Wayne County Circuit Court denied Dairyland and the MCCA’s MSDs, setting the stage for the Court of Appeals to consolidate the appeals arising from this one claim. The Court of Appeals went on to rule as follows:

• Dairyland Insurance Company v. Cameron Mews and Intensive Case Management: Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by denying ICM’s Motion. Under MCR 2.116(C)(6) the “same parties” requires the moving party and the opposing party be the exact same in both actions, which it was. However, ICM did not become party in the Oakland County Case until the Amended Complaint was filed, which was after ICM had filed its suit against Dairyland in Wayne County.

• Diversified Home Health Care v. Dairyland Insurance Company and Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association: The MCCA was entitled to summary disposition as to the providers’ ELCRA violation claims because the MCCA is not a public accommodation. To state a claim under MCL 37.2303(1), a plaintiff must establish among other factors, discrimination resulting in denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the services of a public accommodation. The MCCA, however, does not fit the definition of a public accommodation as the purpose of creating the MCCA was to protect smaller insurers from the potentially severe financial repercussions of the no-fault act. As such, the MCCA serves a private benefit, and therefore, the MCCA was entitled to summary disposition.

• Intensive Case Management v. Dairyland Insurance Company and Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association: Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by denying Dairyland’s MSD because there was no pending case between ICM and Dairyland at the time ICM filed its case in Wayne County.

• Diversified Home Health Care v. Dairyland Insurance Company and Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association: Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by denying Dairyland’s MSD because Diversified was never a party to the Oakland County case, thus the case did not involve the “same parties” pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(6).