Jake Williams Jr v. Enjoi Transportation Solutions
307 Mich. App. 182
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Jake Williams, Jr. was transported to dialysis by Enjoi Transportation; while in a motorized scooter in an Enjoi van he fell and was injured.
- Williams claimed the driver (Slaughter) failed to secure the scooter and drove carelessly; the driver denied negligence and suggested Williams unlatched himself intentionally.
- Williams sought no-fault PIP benefits; Farm Bureau (as the assigned-claims servicing insurer) paid benefits and sought reimbursement from the insurer of the vehicle, American Guarantee.
- Farm Bureau sued American Guarantee for reimbursement under the assigned-claims statute (MCL 500.3172) after being assigned Williams’s claim; American Guarantee contested coverage, arguing the injury did not arise out of use of a motor vehicle "as a motor vehicle" and might not be accidental.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Farm Bureau; American Guarantee appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Farm Bureau was entitled to reimbursement as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assigned-claims insurer (Farm Bureau) is entitled to reimbursement from the vehicle insurer (American Guarantee) after paying PIP benefits | Farm Bureau: statutory reimbursement under MCL 500.3172(1) is available to the assigned servicing insurer for benefits it paid | American Guarantee: coverage disputes (whether injury arose out of use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle and whether injury was accidental) create material factual issues defeating reimbursement | Held for Farm Bureau: reimbursement right is statutory and the servicing insurer is entitled to repayment; coverage disputes do not defeat reimbursement when the vehicle insurer is undisputedly the insurer of the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v Bloomfield Hills Sch Dist, 281 Mich App 49 (court reviewed summary-disposition standard)
- Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 491 Mich 200 (summ. disp. (C)(10) factual-sufficiency principles)
- Sallie v Fifth Third Bank, 297 Mich App 115 (review standards for (C)(10))
- Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105 (summary disposition standard)
- Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (statutory-construction principles)
- Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304 (use of plain meaning/dictionary for undefined statutory terms)
- Allen v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 210 Mich App 591 (assigned-claims reimbursement is independent of claimant/subrogation)
- Spencer v Citizens Ins Co, 239 Mich App 291 (assigned-claims adjustment duties)