938 N.W.2d 749
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff sought no-fault (PIP) benefits after a December 2015 car accident; her claim was assigned to Allstate through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) and Allstate denied benefits.
- Plaintiff received emergency care and was referred for ongoing treatment at Ortho, PC, after contact with an attorney from Michigan Accident Associates (Thomas Quartz) shortly after the accident.
- Allstate moved for summary disposition, arguing plaintiff had been improperly solicited by counsel in violation of criminal solicitation statutes (MCL 750.410 and MCL 750.410b), which rendered her treatment unlawful and barred recovery.
- The trial court granted Allstate’s motion and dismissed plaintiff’s PIP claim, later denying plaintiff’s motion to reinstate/reconsider.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed: it held the criminal solicitation statutes provide criminal penalties only and do not create a civil remedy to bar no-fault benefits; alleged solicitation by counsel is too attenuated from the lawfulness of medical treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged solicitation by plaintiff’s attorney under MCL 750.410/410b can defeat plaintiff’s civil PIP claim | Richardson: criminal solicitation statutes don’t apply to her civil no-fault claim; she was not solicited and statutes don’t create a civil remedy | Allstate: Quartz’s alleged improper solicitation violated criminal statutes and that taint bars plaintiff’s claim and renders treatment unlawful | Reversed: criminal solicitation statutes create only criminal penalties and do not provide a civil remedy to bar PIP benefits; Allstate not entitled to summary disposition |
| Whether alleged improper solicitation makes medical treatment unlawful and non-payable under MCL 500.3157 | Richardson: her medical care at Ortho, PC was lawfully rendered and unrelated to any alleged solicitation | Allstate: solicitation taints the claim and treatment, so treatment is unlawful and not payable | Rejected: connection between solicitation and treatment is too attenuated; no evidence treatment itself was unlawful |
| Whether wrongful-conduct/fraud doctrines permit dismissal where alleged solicitation occurred | Richardson: wrongful-conduct rule applies only to plaintiff’s wrongful acts; here plaintiff did not engage in solicitation | Allstate: solicitation by counsel supports dismissal under public-policy/fraud principles | Court: wrongful-conduct rule inapplicable because plaintiff did not personally engage in wrongful conduct; public-policy argument cannot override statutory limits |
| Whether prior caselaw (e.g., Bahri, Miller) supports barring claim here | Richardson: Miller limits unlawful-treatment doctrine to treatment actually unlawfully rendered; Bahri is distinguishable (fraud evident in claim) | Allstate: relies on cases holding unlawful services not payable | Court: cited Miller and Bahri as distinguishable; Miller supports that corporate/third-party issues unrelated to the service do not render treatment unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (summary disposition standard)
- Miller v. Allstate (On Remand), 275 Mich. App. 649 (treatment must itself be lawfully rendered; attenuated corporate defects don’t render care unlawful)
- Bahri v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 420 (fraud can bar PIP when claim contradicted by evidence)
- Woll v. Kelley, 409 Mich. 500 (rationale for criminal solicitation prohibition to prevent overreaching in PI claims)
- Keliin v. Petrucelli, 198 Mich. App. 426 (criminal solicitation requires substantial pecuniary motivation; First Amendment considerations)
- Gardner v. Wood, 429 Mich. 290 (test for implying civil remedies from criminal statutes)