United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan Pain Management, LLC sued defendant Esurance
Insurance Company for payment of expenses arising out of an
automobile accident on October 18, 2016. This matter is
presently before the Court on Esurance's motion to
dismiss. (Doc. 2). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), the
Court shall rule without oral argument. For the reasons
stated below, Esurance's motion is GRANTED.
Daniels was injured in an automobile accident on October 18,
2016. Daniels sought treatment at Michigan Pain Management
and filed a PIP claim with his insurer, Esurance. Thereafter,
Daniels assigned some of his rights to collect benefits to
Michigan Pain Management. Michigan Pain Management states
that it received the first assignment on November 19, 2016.
December 19, 2016, Daniels sued Esurance in Wayne County
Circuit Court to collect benefits. Esurance removed the case,
numbered 17-10209, and it was randomly assigned to this
to May 25, 2017, Michigan healthcare providers had a
statutory cause of action to recover no fault benefits.
Relying on this statutory cause of action, Michigan Pain
Management sued Esurance in Wayne County Circuit Court on
March 15, 2017. Esurance removed the case, numbered 17-10954,
and it was reassigned to the Honorable George Caram Steeh,
III, as a companion to case number 17-10209, Daniels v.
Esurance Insurance Company. But healthcare
providers' statutory cause of action was eliminated by
the Michigan Supreme Court's May 25, 2017 ruling in
Covenant Medical Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 500 Mich. 191 (2017).
Covenant held “that a healthcare provider
possesses no statutory cause of action against an insurer for
recovery of PIP benefits. . . .” Id. at 491.
The court's decision, however, was “not intended to
alter an insured's ability to assign his or her right to
past or presently due benefits to a healthcare
provider.” Id. at 505 n. 40.
23, 2017, Esurance filed a motion to dismiss Michigan Pain
Management's case numbered 17-10954. Esurance argued
that, under Covenant, Michigan Pain Management
lacked standing and its claims were moot. The Court issued a
notice of hearing on the motion to dismiss and required
Michigan Pain Management to file a response brief by July 24,
2017. Michigan Pain Management never filed a response.
Court issued an order granting Esurance's motion to
dismiss on August 29, 2017. The Court applied the Michigan
Supreme Court's holding in Covenant and found
“that plaintiff [Michigan Pain Management], as a
healthcare service provider, is not the proper party to
request adjudication of the issue whether Mr. Daniels is
entitled to statutory No-Fault benefits under the No-Fault
Act.” (Case 17-10954, Doc. 9 at Page ID 181). The Court
further noted that
[i]n its motion to dismiss, defendant [Esurance] anticipated
that plaintiff [Michigan Pain Management] might seek leave to
file an amended or supplemental pleading based on several
assignments signed by Mr. Daniels. While some of the
assignments were signed before plaintiff [Michigan Pain
Management] filed its lawsuit on March 15, 2017, plaintiff
did not plead that it was Mr. Daniels' assignee in its
complaint. In any event, plaintiff has not sought to amend or
supplement its pleading to make any argument based on the
(Case 17-10954, Doc. 9 at Page ID 181). The court concluded
its order by stating that “[b]ased on the holding of
the Michigan Supreme Court in Covenant, the court
GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss.” (Case
17-10954, Doc. 9 at Page ID 182).
Pain Management filed the instant lawsuit in Macomb County
Circuit Court on December 13, 2017. (Doc. 1-4). Michigan Pain
Management's complaint seeks PIP benefits as Daniels'
assignee. (Doc. 1-4 at PageID 24). Esurance removed the case,
(Doc. 1), and it was reassigned to the Honorable George Caram
Steeh, III, as a companion to case number 17-10954,
Michigan Pain Management, LLC v. Esurance Insurance
Company, (Doc. 5). This matter is presently before the
Court on Esurance's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 2), filed on
February 13, 2018. Michigan Pain Management filed a response
on March 13, 2018. (Doc. 7). Esurance filed a reply on March
23, 2018. (Doc. 9).
confronted with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must construe the complaint in favor
of the plaintiff, accept the allegations of the complaint as
true, and determine whether the plaintiff's factual
allegations present plausible claims. Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-56 (2007). “[N]aked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” and
accusation[s]” are insufficient to “state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint need
not contain “detailed” factual allegations, but
its “factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.”
Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of
Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007).