Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spomer v. Citizens Insurance Company of Midwest

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 27, 2018

EDWIN SPOMER, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MICHIGAN NEUROSURGICAL SPECIALISTS P.C.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (ECF NO. 20)

          LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This lawsuit arises out of no-fault personal protection benefits for injuries Plaintiff Edwin Spomer allegedly sustained from an August 22, 2010 automobile accident. Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit against Defendant Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest in the Wayne County Circuit Court on January 27, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 24, 2017, Defendant removed this case to federal court. This matter is currently before the Court on Michigan Neurosurgical Specialists, P.C.'s (“Michigan Neurosurgical”) motion to intervene, filed March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 20.) Michigan Neurosurgical claims it has an interest in the litigation because it provided Plaintiff with medical services, and Plaintiff assigned Michigan Neurosurgical his right to collect on the outstanding medical bills. Finding the legal arguments sufficient, the Court is dispensing with oral arguments pursuant to L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons set out below, the Court is denying Michigan Neurosurgical's motion to intervene.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         Michigan Neurosurgical filed a healthcare provider lawsuit, Michigan Neurosurgical Specialists, P.C. v. Hanover Insurance Company, 17-157215, against Defendant in the Oakland County Circuit Court on February 7, 2017 (ECF No. 22-2.) Michigan Neurosurgical seeks to recover payments of Plaintiff's outstanding medical bills resulting from an August 22, 2010 automobile accident. (ECF No. 22 at Pg ID 240; ECF No. 22-2; ECF No. 22-3.) On October 11, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition of Michigan Neurosurgical's complaint pursuant to Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm, 500 Mich. 191 (2017), where the Michigan Supreme Court held that healthcare providers do not have an independent statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for PIP payments. (ECF No. 22 at Pg ID 241; ECF No. 22-4.) Also in its motion, Defendant argued that the policy language in the insurance contract precluded any assignment without Defendant's consent. (Id.)

         On January 26, 2018, Judge Denise Langford Morris granted Defendant's motion and dismissed Michigan Neurosurgical's action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Covenant. Judge Langford Morris also found that Michigan Neurosurgical did not have a valid assignment because Defendant did not consent to any assignment, as required under the insurance policy. (ECF No. 22-6.) On February 14, 2018, Michigan Neurosurgical filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Langford Morris denied on March 21, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 22-7 & 22-9.)

         While Michigan Neurosurgical was litigating its own claims, on January 27, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant in the Wayne County Circuit Court, arising from the August 22, 2010 automobile accident. According to Plaintiff, he sustained severe and permanent injuries and damages from the accident and maintains Defendant is liable for no-fault/PIP benefits. (ECF No. 1-1 at Pg ID 10.) On May 24, 2017, after Plaintiff admitted in discovery requests that he was seeking benefits that exceed $75, 000, Defendant removed this matter to federal court. (ECF No. 1.) Following dismissal of its state court lawsuit on March 21, 2018, Michigan Neurosurgical filed a motion to intervene in this matter on March 27, 2018. Defendant filed a response on April 10, 2018. (ECF No. 22.)

         II. Applicable Law and Analysis

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides:

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides for permissive intervention. It states, “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” A motion to intervene “must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c).

         The Sixth Circuit interprets Rule 24(a) as setting forth four elements that must be satisfied before intervention as of right will be granted:

“(1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.