Bazzy v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: RIORDAN, P.J.
• Docket Number: 372729
• Decision Date: 19 December 2025
• Citation: Bazzy v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 372729 (Mich. App. Dec 19, 2025)
• Parties: KAREEM BAZZY, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ABDEL M. BAZZY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

1

KAREEM BAZZY, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ABDEL M. BAZZY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 372729

Court of Appeals of Michigan

December 19, 2025

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 23-000385-NF

Before: Michael J. Riordan, P.J., and Kristina Robinson Garrett and Philip P. Mariani, JJ.

RIORDAN, P.J.

Plaintiff Kareem Bazzy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Abdel M. Bazzy, appeals as of right the trial court's January 29, 2024 order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Citizens Insurance Company of America and denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary disposition to compel arbitration. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by refusing to compel arbitration and dismissing the case because Abdel and defendant had a contractual agreement to submit their no-fault dispute to arbitration, and enforcement of the agreement was not barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant disagrees, arguing that the statute of limitations and laches bar enforcement of the arbitration agreement, and the trial court correctly so concluded.

For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the question of whether the statute of limitations or laches bars enforcement of an arbitration agreement generally is a question for the arbitrator, not the trial court. Thus, while we express no opinion on the underlying merits of that question, we reverse the trial court and remand to that court for further proceedings.

I. FACTS

In January 2023, plaintiff filed his complaint against defendant, thereby initiating Case No. 23-000385-NF, the instant case before us. According to the complaint and accompanying exhibits, on May 26, 2007, plaintiff's decedent, Abdel Bazzy, was struck by a motor vehicle in Dearborn and suffered injuries. Defendant was the responsible no-fault insurer. However, defendant apparently paid only some of the no-fault benefits to which Abdel was entitled, and disputed the remainder of the claimed benefits. Abdel sued defendant, thereby initiating Case No. 08-114629NF, and the two parties entered into an agreement for binding arbitration. That agreement provided, in relevant part:

The arbitrators shall determine the following issues:

a. The nature of and extent of accidental bodily injury sustained by the Plaintiff, Abdel M. Bazzy;

b. Whether the accidental bodily injuries claimed by Abdel Bazzy arose out of the motor vehicle accident of May 26, 2007;

c. Whether Abdel M. Bazzy is entitled to recovery of any benefits against Citizens pursuant to the No-Fault Act as a result of injuries which arose out of the motor vehicle accident of May 26, 2007;

d. The amount of damages, if any, to which the Plaintiff is entitled.

* * *

The written decision of two arbitrators is binding. The award of the arbitrators will represent a full and final resolution as to any and all past and present no-fault PIP benefits up to the date of this arbitration, to which Abdel M. Bazzy has claimed or may claim as a result of the accident of May 26, 2007.

* * *

If either party refuses to abide by the award, judgment on the award may be entered in the Court having jurisdiction.^[1]

Consistent with that agreement, on February 19, 2009, Abdel and defendant entered into a stipulated order for dismissal of Case No. 08-114629-NF, providing that the case "is dismissed without prejudice and without costs, attorney fees and/or interest to either party, due to the parties' agreement to place this litigation into binding arbitration ...."

Returning to the complaint in the matter before us, plaintiff alleged:

¶ 13. That following the execution of the agreement to arbitrate the parties engaged in discovery. The deposition of Plaintiff's decedent was taken and the two independent medical examinations were conducted at the request of the Defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of America.

* * *

¶ 15. On January 4, 2017, Abdel M. Bazzy, died due to causes unrelated to the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident. Subsequently, a decedent's Estate was opened in the Wayne County Probate Court .... The court appointed Kareem Bazzy as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Abdel M. Bazzy.

* * *

¶ 18. Defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of America has changed attorneys numerous times since the inception of this matter, and there have been numerous delays in moving this matter forward. Since the filing of this matter and the subsequent to the execution of the Agreement to Arbitrate, the Defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of America has been represented by the four different attorneys ....

* * *

¶ 21. On January 10, 2022 defense counsel, Andrew Biscoglia emailed Plaintiff decedent's counsel advising, in part, "whatever contract that the alleged arbitration agreement may have created [sic] between Mr. Bazzy and Citizens can no longer be fulfilled by Mr. Bazzy." . . . [Emphasis in original.]

Accordingly, plaintiff sought a court order determining that there is an enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendant, and directing those two parties to proceed with arbitration.

In July 2023, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). In the motion and accompanying brief, defendant argued that the complaint for arbitration was barred by the six-year breach of contract statute of limitations, see MCL 600.5807(9), as the arbitration agreement was executed in 2009, and plaintiff did not initiate the instant action until 2023. Defendant similarly argued that the complaint was barred by the doctrine of laches. Defendant asserted that "Plaintiff's extreme and inexcusable delays in arbitrating this case [have] caused unfair prejudice to Defendant as Defendant will be forced to arbitrate a case that is sixteen years old wherein the original parties and witnesses are either deceased or no longer available to provide any information as the PIP claim."

Plaintiff responded that the statute-of-limitations issue was meritless because this Court has implicitly recognized that arbitration may require multiyear delays. Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) as well. In the accompanying brief, plaintiff argued that the only question before the trial court was whether the instant no-fault dispute was subject to the arbitration agreement. And, plaintiff explained, there is no reasonable dispute that the instant dispute is squarely within the terms of the arbitration agreement. Thus, according to plaintiff, "defenses/arguments that the statute of limitations has expired, laches, and the one year back rule are not for this court to decide but rather for the arbitrators at an arbitration hearing."

Plaintiff consequently requested that the trial court order the parties to arbitration but retain jurisdiction over the action to enforce the eventual arbitration judgment.^[2]

At the hearing on the competing motions for summary disposition, the parties argued consistent with their respective briefs. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of defendant, reasoning as follows:

But at the end of the day, it just sounded to me that Plaintiff has essentially abandoned the claim for over a decade.

And I know that discovery was complete in 2015. And although the Plaintiffs had attached -- they had -- they attached additional attempts to contact the Defendant's Counsel and those attempts were made in 2019, 2020. But Plaintiff still had several years to attempt to arbitrate before the Plaintiff died.

So I mean, I'm looking at it that while there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, due to the inaction of the Plaintiff, that agreement isn't enforceable any more because at the end of the day, it wouldn't be subject to arbitration because we have a contract that contains the arbitration. And the six-year statute of limitations has expired on that contract itself. And so there's no action taken within the six-year statute of limitation period.

So the period has run....

The trial court entered its written order memorializing its decision on the record a couple of weeks later.

Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred because timeliness defenses to enforcement of an arbitration agreement are procedural questions to be determined by the arbitrator, not the court. Plaintiff alternatively argues that the trial court erred because its decision was based upon the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations, but the breach of contract did not occur until about 2022, when defendant indicated that it would not comply with the arbitration agreement.

Defendant responds that the trial court should be affirmed because the arbitration agreement was breached within a reasonable period of time after its execution in March 2009 due to the fact that the parties did not fulfill its arbitration terms, thereby rendering the instant action outside the six-year statute of limitations. Defendant further argues that the trial court should be affirmed on the alternate basis of laches, and that such timeliness defenses are questions for the court, not the arbitrator.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Summary disposition is granted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when dismissal of the action is appropriate because of 'an agreement to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum.'" Emerzian v N Bros Ford Inc, __ Mich.App. __, __; __NW3d __ (2024) (Docket No. 365100), slip op at 2. "This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7)." Id. "In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), this Court accepts as true, and construes in plaintiff's favor, well-pleaded allegations in the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and...