J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Adams
| Decision Date | 19 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-CV-70347-DT.,04-CV-70347-DT. |
| Citation | 537 F.Supp.2d 880 |
| Parties | J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Plaintiff, v. Jamal ADAMS and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Herman Diaz, Third-Party Defendant. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Counter-Claimant, v. J.B. Hunt, Counter-Defendant, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Blue Care Network of Michigan, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Robert E. McFarland, Foster, Swift, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.
Mark J. Zausmer, Zausmer, Kaufman, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants.
Marcy A. Tayler, Karyn A. Thwaites, Zausmer, Kaufman, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Claimant.
Dirk H. Beckwith, Foster, Swift, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant.
Sue E. Jenkins, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Lansing, MI, for Third-Party Defendant.
Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("J.B.Hunt"). The motions have been fully briefed and the court concludes that a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons stated below, the court will deny State Farm's motion and grant J.B. Hunt's motion.
On April 2, 2003, in Southfield, Michigan, a motorcycle driven by Jamal Adams drove into a tractor-trailer owned by J.B. Hunt and driven by 3.B. Hunt employee, Herman Diaz.2 As a result of the collision Adams was seriously injured and requested that J.B. Hunt provide him personal protection benefits. J.B. Hunt refused to pay the benefits. Adams then requested that State Farm, his motor vehicle insurer, provide him with no-fault benefits. State Farm provided the benefits to Adams, but claims that it is entitled to reimbursement and indemnification for all personal protection insurance benefits that State Farm has paid and will pay to Adams.
This action revolves around which entity is required to pay for Adams' personal protection benefits in connection with the accident. There does not appear to be any dispute that if the mandatory security requirements of the Michigan No Fault Act apply to J.B. Hunt, then J.B. Hunt is first in priority and must provide Adams with benefits.3 Rather, the dispute centers upon whether J.B. Hunt is subject to the Michigan No Fault Act at all.4 J.B. Hunt instituted this declaratory action on January 30, 2004, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to pay benefits because the tractor at issue was not covered by the Michigan No Fault Act because the tractor was not operated in Michigan for more than 30 days in 2003 (Count II).5 State Farm filed a counterclaim against J.B. Hunt, seeking reimbursement from J.B. Hunt, for the no-fault benefits State Farm has already paid and continues to pay to Adams.
The case proceeded through discovery and dispositive motion practice. State Farm and Blue Care Network filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that J.B. Hunt was subject to the security requirements of the No Fault Act because its tractor and trailer were operated in Michigan for the requisite number of days. After holding a hearing, this court denied both motions, concluding that a rational jury could find that J.B. Hunt did not operate its tractor or trailer in Michigan for more than 30 days in 2003. (5/9/06 Order.)
After several adjournments, a jury trial was scheduled to commence on September 27, 2006. Two days prior to trial, the court was contacted by counsel, who requested that trial be adjourned and discovery reopened because of J.B. Hunt's erroneous discovery responses. Specifically, in March 2005, State Farm had requested that J.B. Hunt produce "all documents related to the J.B. Hunt trailer that was involved in the accident that is the subject of the captioned litigation for the life of the trailer, including but not limited to ... [r]epair records." (See State Farm's Mot. for Costs at 6.) In response, J.B. Hunt produced repair records in June 2005 which J.B. Hunt represented related to the trailer at issue. (Id.) State Farm contends that these documents established that the trailer at issue was operated in Michigan for more than 30 days in 2003. While preparing for trial, however, J.B. Hunt discovered that some, or a majority, of the repair records which it produced actually related to a tractor and trailer that were not involved in the accident at issue. (Id. at 7.) J.B. Hunt informed State Farm, and together the parties contacted the court for an emergency telephone conference.
As a result of this conference, and because of J.B. Hunt's erroneous document production, the court adjourned the trial and reopened discovery. (See 9/29/06 Order.). The court conducted another conference in October 2006 and determined that additional discovery was warranted. (See 10/31/06 Order.) Discovery has now concluded, and both State Farm and J.B. Hunt have filed motions for summary judgment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). "In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir.2003). "Where the moving party has carried its burden of showing that the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits in the record, construed favorably to the nonmoving party, do not raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial, entry of summary judgment is appropriate." Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1536 (6th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
The court does not weigh the evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but rather, to determine if the evidence produced creates a genuine issue for trial. Sagan, 342 F.3d at 497 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). The moving party must first show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Plant v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 212 F.3d 929, 934 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). They must put forth enough evidence to show that there exists a genuine issue to be decided at trial. Plant, 212 F.3d at 934 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Summary judgment is not appropriate when "the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986).
The existence of a factual dispute alone does not, however, defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment — the disputed factual issue must be material. See id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis and alteration in original) (citation omitted) ("The judge's inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict — `whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.'"). A fact is "material" for purposes of summary judgment when proof of that fact would establish or refute an essential element of the claim or a defense advanced by either party. Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir.1984) (citation omitted).
The issue at hand centers upon whether J.B. Hunt's tractor-trailer was subject to the mandatory security requirements of the No Fault Act at the time of the collision. If the tractor-trailer was subject to such security requirements, then J.B. Hunt is first in priority to provide Adams with personal protection insurance benefits. If J.B. Hunt is not subject to the security requirements, then J.B. Hunt is not obligated to provide Adams with benefits and the obligation falls to the next entity in the priority line, in accordance with the priority provision of § 500.3114(5).6
The relevant provision of the No Fault Act provides, in pertinent part:
A nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle not registered in this state shall not operate or permit the motor vehicle or motorcycle to be operated in this state for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year unless he or she continuously maintains security for the payments of benefits pursuant to this chapter.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3102(1). Therefore, "[s]ecurity must be maintained for vehicles operated in this state for more than thirty days in a single calendar year." Parks v. Detroit Auto Inter-Insurance Exchange, 426 Mich. 191, 393 N.W.2d 833, 837 (1986). The 30-day requirement is designed to protect tourists and other transient nonresidents from criminal sanctions imposed by the No Fault Act. Gersten v. Blackwell, 111 Mich.App. 418, 314 N.W.2d 645, 648 (1981).
State Farm grounds its motion on the assertion that the term "calendar year," as used in § 500.3102(1), refers to the twelve-month period immediately preceding an accidental bodily injury upon which a...
To continue reading
Request your trial