Allstate Insurance Co. v. Global Medical Billing, Inc., 520 F. App'x 409

Allstate Insurance Co. appeals a district court dismissal for lack of standing in a Michigan no‑fault auto insurance case.
Michigan law assigns uninsured claimants to insurers via the Assigned Claims Facility (ACF); insurers must pay promptly and are reimburse by the ACF.
Allstate alleges a scheme by multiple providers to submit fraudulent claims; Allstate paid about $680,000 over ~6 years.
Plaintiff filed a seven‑count complaint on December 23, 2009 against 24 defendants alleging violations of Michigan law, RICO, and various common law theories.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b); district court dismissed claiming lack of standing due to full reimbursement by the ACF, and Plaintiff did not respond to that argument.
Plaintiff later sought reconsideration and claimed non‑reimbursed claims; on appeal, the sole issue is timeliness of that argument and whether the court erred in not considering it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Allstate have standing given ACF reimbursements?	Allstate seeks damages for non‑reimbursed claims against Defendants.	Allstate had been reimbursed by the ACF for reimbursed claims, so no damages remain.	No standing for reimbursed claims; issue limited to non‑reimbursed claims; ultimately affirmed dismissal.
Was the non‑reimbursed‑claims argument timely raised?	Raised in motion for reconsideration and on appeal to amend.	New arguments raised for first time on appeal are waived absent exceptional circumstances.	Waived; not exceptional, and district court not required to consider.
Did Plaintiff preserve non‑reimbursed claims by amendment?	Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to include non‑reimbursed claims.	Amendment raised too late and would resurrect waived arguments.	Not preserved; amendment argument waived.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires an injury that is concrete and redressable)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing requires injury and redressability)
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Cogswell Props., LLC, 683 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2012) (untimely motion for reconsideration can be excused in exceptional cases)
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (prudential waiver rules apply to arguments raised on appeal)
Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 12(b)(1) vs 12(b)(6) distinctions; preclusive effect considerations)
Murray v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 681 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2012) (standing pleading elements under Sixth Circuit)
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Logitrans, Inc., 297 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2002) (distinction between Rule 17 and standing analysis)