Mohamed Abed-Ali v. Auto Club Insurance Association
332143
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On Aug 9, 2005 plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident and later claimed he required extensive attendant care and other PIP benefits from defendant Auto Club Insurance Association.
- Plaintiff sued defendant twice earlier (2008 and 2010) over PIP/attendant care; the second case was submitted to binding arbitration but the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) refused to consent.
- In Oct 2012 the parties jointly stipulated to reinstate (reopen) the second lawsuit, but the trial court declined to reopen and suggested filing a new (third) suit; plaintiff filed the third suit on Feb 28, 2013.
- Defendant moved in limine to bar recovery for losses incurred more than one year before the Feb 28, 2013 filing under the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1); the court denied the motion.
- At a six-day jury trial only the attendant care claim remained; the jury awarded $490,800 in allowable expenses and $153,424 in interest.
- Trial court denied defendant’s posttrial JNOV/new-trial motion, concluding (1) sufficient evidence supported the overdue-benefits/penalty-interest award and (2) defendant was estopped/waived the one-year-back defense given its prior stipulation and conduct. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred denying limine and admitting evidence of losses older than 1 year before the 2013 filing (one-year-back rule) | Defendant waived or is equitably estopped from invoking the one-year-back rule because of its prior conduct and stipulation to reopen the earlier suit | One-year-back rule bars recovery for losses before Feb 28, 2012; admission of pre-2012 evidence prejudiced defendant | Court affirmed: equitable (pinpoint) application warranted because defendant stipulated to reopen and was silent when court suggested filing a new suit; denial of limine not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether defendant was entitled to JNOV on penalty interest under MCL 500.3142 (overdue benefits) | Plaintiff had provided extensive proof over years (medical records, physician disability slips, calendar affidavits, prior litigation and payments) and defendant had notice; proof was reasonable | Plaintiff failed to present reasonable proof of fact/amount until trial, so penalty interest was improper | Court affirmed JNOV denial: evidence and inferences supported a finding that attendant-care benefits were overdue and penalty interest was appropriate |
| Standard of review for motions in limine/new trial/JNOV | N/A | N/A | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review for in limine/new trial and de novo review on statutory interpretation/JNOV as required by precedent |
| Availability/limits of equitable relief from the one-year-back rule | Equitable estoppel/waiver may be applied narrowly when unusual circumstances exist and defendant’s conduct justifies it | One-year-back rule should be enforced as written except in narrow, pinpointed equitable exceptions | Court applied the limited Devillers exception (pinpoint equity) and concluded an unusual circumstance warranted relief against strict rule application |
Key Cases Cited
- Brownlow v. McCall Enterprises, Inc., 315 Mich. App. 103 (2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for motion in limine)
- Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., 302 Mich. App. 7 (2013) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial motions)
- Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich. 200 (2012) (explaining one-year-back rule under MCL 500.3145(1))
- Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 473 Mich. 562 (2005) (one-year-back rule generally enforced; narrow equitable exceptions allowed)
- Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 469 Mich. 124 (2003) (standard for JNOV—view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Central Cartage Co. v. Fewless, 232 Mich. App. 517 (1998) (JNOV standard; verdict stands if reasonable jurors could differ)