Circuit Court LC No. 16-009822-NF
Before: Murray, C.J., and Jansen and Riordan, JJ.
appeals as of right the trial court order granting defendant
summary disposition, and the trial court order denying
plaintiff's motion to "reinstate the case," in
this no-fault matter. We reverse the order granting defendant
summary disposition, vacate the order denying plaintiff's
motion to reinstate, and remand for further proceedings.
appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in
granting defendant summary disposition, and denying
plaintiff's motion to reinstate because plaintiff was not
solicited by counsel, and the criminal statutes prohibiting
solicitation do not apply. Thus, defendant lacks standing to
challenge any solicitation and the trial court erred in
granting defendant summary disposition because the criminal
statutes at issue prohibiting solicitation, MCL 750.410 and
MCL 750.410b, do not apply in this civil matter.
matter arises from plaintiff's claims for personal
protection insurance (PIP) benefits pursuant to the no-fault
act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., for injuries she
sustained in a car accident in December 2015. Plaintiff was
driving with two others in the vehicle, and stopped at an
intersection. A vehicle two cars behind plaintiff was unable
to stop, and hit the vehicle directly behind plaintiff's
car, which caused that vehicle to hit plaintiff's car,
allegedly resulting in her injuries. Later that day,
plaintiff went to Oakwood Annapolis Hospital for neck pain
and dizziness. After being released from the hospital,
plaintiff was referred for medical treatment at Ortho, PC, by
her attorney's office, Michigan Accident Associates,
PLLC. Plaintiff's claims for PIP benefits then were
assigned to defendant through the Michigan Assigned Claims
Plan (MACP), and defendant denied plaintiff's claims.
filed a motion for summary disposition in the trial court
based on improper solicitation of plaintiff by Thomas Quartz,
an attorney with Michigan Accident Associates. The motion was
based on plaintiff's deposition testimony that Quartz was
at her home the day that she was released from the hospital,
only days after the accident occurred. The trial court
granted defendant summary disposition because plaintiff
failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding
defendant's assertion that she was improperly solicited
by her attorney, and the improper solicitation rendered
plaintiff's medical treatment unlawful. The trial court
later denied plaintiff's motion to reinstate, which was
essentially a motion for reconsideration.
Court reviews a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Gorman v American Honda Motor Co, Inc, 302 Mich.App.
113, 115; 839 N.W.2d 223 (2013). A motion for summary
disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the
factual support for a party's claim. Maiden v
Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). When
reviewing a motion brought under this subrule, the court must
examine all documentary evidence presented to it, draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich.App. 406, 431; 789
N.W.2d 211 (2010). Summary disposition is proper when the
evidence fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact,
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich. 177, 183; 665
N.W.2d 468 (2003). "A genuine issue of material fact
exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable
doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which
reasonable minds might differ." Id.
the no-fault act, 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 . . . ." MCL 500.3105(1). PIP benefits are
payable for "[a]llowable expenses consisting of all
reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary
products, services and accommodations for an injured
person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation." MCL
of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.1 et seq., MCL
750.410b prohibits improper solicitation of motor vehicle
(1) A person shall not intentionally contact any individual
that the person knows has sustained a personal injury as a
direct result of a motor vehicle accident, or an immediate
family member of that individual, with a direct solicitation
to provide a service until the expiration of 30 days after
the date of that motor vehicle ...