Chouman v. Home Owners Insurance
293 Mich. App. 434
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Parties: Abir Chouman and Abdul Aziz Ajami sued Home Owners Insurance Company (HOIC), their no-fault insurer, after an auto collision where Hamadi rear-ended Chouman.
- Original defendant was Hamadi; HOIC appeals after trial court rulings adverse to HOIC.
- HOIC allegedly paid PIP benefits, then terminated payments; this sequence is challenged as admissible for improper purpose.
- Plaintiffs seek underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits for the difference between their policy and Hamadi’s policy limits.
- Plaintiffs settled with Hamadi and AAA; HOIC’s consent to that settlement is challenged as admissible evidence for subrogation or liability purposes.
- Trial court admitted disputed testimonial evidence; HOIC challenges the directed verdict on serious impairment of body function and sanctions imposed for case evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of HOIC’s PIP payments evidence | Chouman—HOIC payment history relevant to medical condition. | Evidence unduly prejudicial; potential conflict with MRE 408/409. | Admissible for non-liability purposes; payor identity excluded on remand. |
| Admissibility of HOIC’s consent to Hamadi settlement | Consent supports subrogation and damages arguments. | Consent risks prejudicial and improper settlement proof under MRE 408. | Admissible but not to prejudice; not to prove meritorious claims, and may be limited on remand. |
| Whether the directed verdict on serious impairment of body function was correct | There was material factual dispute about the injury, requiring jury review. | Record supports no genuine dispute on impairment. | Directed verdict reversed; jury to decide serious impairment; remand for new trial. |
| Impact of case evaluation sanctions | Sanctions related to the impairment issue should stand if justified. | Sanctions improper if based on erroneous impairment ruling. | Sanctions vacated; judgment reversed and remanded for retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Hidalgo, 478 Mich 151 (2007) (abuse of discretion limits on admissibility; de novo for legal determinations)
- Windemuller Electric Co. v. Blodgett Mem. Med. Ctr., 130 Mich App 17 (1983) (MRE 408 applies to settlements with nonparties for liability proof)
- Ogden v. George F. Alger Co., 353 Mich 402 (1958) (consent to settlements may be relevant to peace and not liability)
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (serious impairment is threshold question decided as law unless material factual dispute)
- Alpha Capital Mgt., Inc. v. Rentenbach, 287 Mich App 589 (2010) (MRE 408/409 analysis on settlements and other purposes)
- Zsigo v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 475 Mich 215 (2006) (directed verdict review de novo; favorable view to non-movant)