Mich. Head & Spine Inst. PC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

• Docket Number: 354765
• Decision Date: 02 September 2021
• Citation: Mich. Head & Spine Inst. PC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 338 Mich.App. 721, 980 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. App. 2021)
• Parties: MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE PC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Home-Owners Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

338 Mich.App. 721

980 N.W.2d 567

MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE PC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Home-Owners Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 354765

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 8, 2021, at Detroit.

Decided September 2, 2021, 9:10 a.m.

Miller & Tischler, PC(by Sean F. Kelly ) for plaintiff.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC, Livonia (by Jacklyn P. Paletta, Stanley Okoli, and Douglas J. Curlew ) for defendants.

Before: Riordan, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ.

M. J. Kelly, J. Plaintiff, Michigan Head & Spine Institute PC, appeals by right the trial court order granting summary disposition to defendantsAuto-Owners Insurance Company and Home-Owners Insurance Company.For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.BASIC FACTS

This appeal arises from Michigan Head & Spine's claim for no-fault insurance benefits from Auto-Owners and Home-Owners for healthcare services provided to 39 individuals between June 11, 2019 and May 8, 2020.Michigan Head & Spine alleged that although it submitted reasonable proof of the fact and amount of each loss, and although it repeatedly requested full payment of the outstanding charges, Auto-Owners and Home-Owners unreasonably withheld or delayed full payment.Relevant to the issue raised on appeal, Michigan Head & Spine alleged that jurisdiction lay with the circuit court because the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000.In support of that allegation, it submitted documentation showing that the unpaid balance of the 39 individuals’ accounts was more than $200,000.

Auto-Owners and Home-Owners moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8)andMCR 2.116(C)(10).They stressed that the individual patients named in the complaint were involved in separate motor vehicle crashes that occurred on different dates and at different locations and that resulted in varying treatments.They contended that the only commonality between the patients was their purported treatment at Michigan Head & Spine.In addition, they argued that the reason for nonpayment or reduced payment on the claims listed in the complaint varied, noting that some of the reasons were that Michigan Head & Spine billed at an unreasonable rate, that the treatment billed for was unrelated to the relevant motor vehicle crashes, that there was insufficient information in the invoices submitted, and that there were attempted double billings for the same procedures.Finally, they noted that although each patient was insured by either Auto-Owners or Home-Owners, none was insured by both.

Relevant to this appeal, Auto-Owners and Home-Owners argued that Michigan Head & Spine could not aggregate 39 "completely different claims" to meet the jurisdictional threshold of $25,000.The trial court agreed and dismissed all 39 claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

II.SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

A.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Michigan Head & Spine argues that the circuit court erred by granting summary disposition.We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition.Barnard Mfg. Co. Inc v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc , 285 Mich.App. 362, 369, 775 N.W.2d 618(2009)."Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo."Citizens for Common Sense in Gov't v. Attorney General , 243 Mich.App. 43, 49-50, 620 N.W.2d 546(2000).Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is proper if the court lacks jurisdiction over the presented subject matter.Packowski v United Food & Commercial Workers Local 951 , 289 Mich.App. 132, 138, 796 N.W.2d 94(2010).In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4), we examine whether the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and documents in the case show that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.Id. at 139, 796 N.W.2d 94.¹

B.ANALYSIS

Circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction that have original jurisdiction to hear and decide all civil claims and remedies "except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court ...."MCL 600.605;Manning v. Amerman , 229 Mich.App. 608, 610-611, 582 N.W.2d 539(1998).Under MCL 600.8301(1), "[t]he district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.00."Although MCL 600.8301(1) is silent as to how the "amount in controversy" should be determined, our Supreme Court held that, absent bad faith in the pleadings, the amount in controversy is determined from the prayer for relief in the plaintiff's pleadings.Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 499 Mich. 211, 223-224, 884 N.W.2d 238(2016).In its complaint, Michigan Head & Spine alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000, and there is no evidence indicating that the pleading was done in bad faith.Therefore, under Hodge , the jurisdictional threshold for an action before the circuit court is satisfied.

The circuit court, however, held that under Boyd v. Nelson Credit Ctrs. Inc. , 132 Mich.App. 774, 348 N.W.2d 25(1984), Michigan Head & Spine could not aggregate multiple claims of multiple patients to meet the circuit court's jurisdictional threshold.In doing so, the circuit court misapplied the holding from Boyd .In Boyd , this Court held that the separate claims of individual plaintiffs may not be aggregated for the purposes of determining jurisdiction.Id. at 780-781, 348 N.W.2d 25.But it also recognized that the various claims of a single plaintiff may be aggregated.Id. at 781, 348 N.W.2d 25.Here, although Michigan Head & Spine has 39 individual claims based on treatment it provided to 39 separate patients, Michigan Head & Spine is indisputably a single plaintiff attempting to aggregate its various claims.As a result, applying the rule from Boyd , Michigan Head & Spine may aggregate its various claims for the purposes of determining jurisdiction.

The circuit court also relied upon this Court's decision in Priority Patient Transp LLC v. Farmers Ins Exch , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 2, 2017(Docket No. 329420), 2017 WL 1787441.Unpublished decisions of this Court are not binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), but they can be "instructive or persuasive,"Paris Meadows, LLC v.Kentwood , 287 Mich.App. 136, 145 n 3, 783 N.W.2d 133(2010).In Priority Patient , a single plaintiff filed suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant had "failed to tender personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for the medical transportation of 14 separate individuals in violation of the no-fault act ...."Priority Patient , unpub. op.at 1.The Priority PatientCourt correctly noted that Boyd held that, absent a class action, multiple plaintiffs could not aggregate multiple claims to meet the jurisdictional threshold of the circuit court.Id. at 3.The Court also recognized a single plaintiff with multiple claims could aggregate those claims to meet or exceed the amount-in-controversy jurisdictional requirement.Id ., citing Moody v. Home Owners Ins Co , 304 Mich.App. 415, 849 N.W.2d 31(2014), rev'd on other grounds byHodge , 499 Mich. 211, 884 N.W.2d 238.Yet, despite citing caselaw that expressly permits a single plaintiff to aggregate its various claims to reach the jurisdictional threshold, the Priority PatientCourt concluded that the single plaintiff could not aggregate its 14 claims against the defendant to reach the jurisdictional threshold because to do so would be to "subvert"the rule in Boyd .

Priority Patient , unpub. op. at 4.The rationale in Priority Patient is unpersuasive.The opinion simultaneously acknowledges that a single plaintiff may aggregate its various claims to meet or exceed the jurisdictional limits of the circuit court and then immediately precludes a single plaintiff from taking that permissible action.Given the logical dissonance, we decline to find Priority Patient either instructive or persuasive.

Ostensibly, the Priority PatientCourt was concerned that the plaintiff was aggregating the separate claims of 14 separate plaintiffs into a single action, which would be impermissible under Boyd .Joinder of claims, however, is governed by MCR 2.203, whereas the determination of whether the amount in controversy has been sufficiently pleaded is determined by referring to the pleadings, Hodge , 499 Mich. at 223-224, 884 N.W.2d 238.As a result, whether claims are properly joined is an issue separate, but related to whether a plaintiff may aggregate its properly joined claims to reach the jurisdictional limits of the circuit court.²

III.CONCLUSION

Under Hodge , the amount in controversy is determined by referring to the pleadings.Id.Under Boyd , a single plaintiff may aggregate its various claims to satisfy the jurisdictional limits of the circuit court.Here, although Michigan Head & Spine has 39 separate claims, it is still just a single plaintiff aggregating its various claims.Therefore, under Hodge and Boyd , it may aggregate all of its various claims to reach the jurisdictional threshold of the circuit court.The trial court erred by holding otherwise.³

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.We do not retain jurisdiction.Michigan Head & Spine may tax costs as the prevailing party.MCR 7.219(A).

Shapiro, J., concurred with M. J. Kelly, J.

Riordan, P.J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

Plaintiff, Michigan Head & Spine Institute PC, sued defendantAuto-Owners Insurance Company and defendantHome-Owners Insurance Company—apparently two unrelated entities—for no-fault benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. , for healthcare services that it provided to 39 patients.There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the claims for these 39 patients are connected in any respect beyond the allegation that "DEFENDANTS are the No-Fault insurers that are responsible to pay No-Fault benefits to or for the benefit...