Williams v. Enjoi Transp. Solutions

• Decision Date: 09 October 2014
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 312872,312882.
• Citation: 858 N.W.2d 530,307 Mich.App. 182
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. ENJOI TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS.

307 Mich.App. 182

858 N.W.2d 530

WILLIAMS

v.ENJOI TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS.

Docket Nos. 312872

312882.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2014, at Detroit.

Decided Oct. 9, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

Anselmi & Mierzejewski, PC, Bloomfield (by John D. Ruth and Michael D. Phillips), for Farm Bureau Insurance Company.

Ward, Anderson, Porritt & Bryant, PLC (by David S. Anderson, Bloomfield and Nicolette S. Zachary ), for American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company.

Before: O'CONNELL, P.J., and WILDER and METER, JJ.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this automobile-insurance dispute, defendant American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company appeals¹ the September 24, 2012, order granting summary disposition to defendant Farm Bureau Insurance Company and granting in part and denying in part summary disposition to Trinity Physical Therapy, Inc. We affirm.

These appeals arise from lawsuits surrounding a claim for no-fault personal protection insurance benefits made by Jake Williams, Jr. Enjoi Transportation Solutions is a company that provides nonemergency transportation to the elderly and disabled. Enjoi transported Williams to dialysis appointments multiple times a week because Williams had ambulatory difficulties and was commonly confined to a motorized “scooter” wheelchair. On January 19, 2010, Walter Slaughter picked Williams up in an Enjoi van at approximately 2:30 p.m.; Williams remained in the scooter while being transported. At some point during the transport, Williams fell from his scooter and sustained injuries; he claimed that Slaughter had not secured the scooter in the van and had been “hitting corners” on the freeway and that this caused Williams to fall. Slaughter, on the other hand, testified that he had secured the scooter in the van and that the only way Williams could have fallen in the manner he did was if he had intentionally unlatched himself. Slaughter believed that Williams had intentionally tried to hurt himself.

On September 10, 2010, Farm Bureau filed a declaratory judgment action against Enjoi, alleging that, as a result of the above-mentioned incident, Williams filed a claim with the assigned claims facility of the Michigan Department of State; Farm Bureau had been assigned Williams's claim; and, as a result, Farm Bureau had incurred costs. On March 2, 2011, Farm Bureau filed its first amended complaint, naming American Guarantee as Enjoi's insurer and alleging that Farm Bureau was entitled to recover from American Guarantee all no-fault benefits paid to Williams because American Guarantee was a higher priority insurer.

On April 5, 2011, American Guarantee filed its answer to Farm Bureau's amended complaint and its affirmative defenses. American Guarantee stated that Williams's alleged injuries were not covered injuries because they “did not arise out of the ownership, operation, or maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle” and Williams “did not suffer any accidental bodily injuries” on the date of the incident.

On October 6, 2011, Williams filed a complaint against Enjoi, Farm Bureau, and American Guarantee. The complaint alleged negligence against Enjoi and breach of contract against Farm Bureau and American Guarantee for failure to pay no-fault benefits. The two lawsuits were thereafter consolidated.

On June 19, 2012, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). In response, American Guarantee argued that there were material factual disputes regarding whether Williams's injuries actually arose out of a motor vehicle accident and regarding whether the injury was accidental.

The trial court, without much explication, granted summary disposition to Farm Bureau.²

“This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition.” Allen v. Bloomfield Hills Sch. Dist., 281 Mich.App. 49, 52, 760 N.W.2d 811 (2008). The trial court's statements on the record make clear that it granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200, 206, 815 N.W.2d 412 (2012). In reviewing a grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court considers the pleadings, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sallie v. Fifth Third Bank, 297 Mich.App. 115, 117–118, 824 N.W.2d 238 (2012). Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. MCR 2.116(C)(10) ; Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105, 111, 746 N.W.2d 868 (2008).

We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562, 566, 702 N.W.2d 539 (2005).

The no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Under personal protection insurance an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of this chapter.

* * *

(4) Bodily injury is accidental as to a person claiming personal protection insurance benefits unless suffered intentionally by the injured person or caused intentionally by the claimant. [MCL 500.3105.]

A person who is entitled to benefits because of an accidental bodily injury arising out of an automobile accident may obtain personal protection insurance benefits through the assigned claims plan if no personal protection insurance is applicable to the injury, no applicable insurance can be identified, the personal protection insurance applicable to the injury cannot be ascertained because of a dispute between automobile insurers, or the only identifiable personal protection insurance is inadequate to cover the loss because of the insurer's inability to fulfill its financial obligations. MCL 500.3172(1). The insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle involved in the accident has the highest priority for payment of benefits. MCL 500.3114(5)(a).

Unpaid benefits may be collected under the assigned claims plan, and the insurer to which the claim is assigned “is entitled to reimbursement from the defaulting insurers to the extent of their financial responsibility.” MCL 500.3172(1) ; see also Mich. Admin. Code, R 11.105 (“[t]he assigned claims facility or the servicing insurer to which the claim is assigned is entitled to reimbursement for the personal protection insurance benefits which are...