Experience, expertise and common sense.
Conversion Claim Stands: Covenant Does Not Preclude Provider from Pursuing Conversion Claim against Plaintiff Attorney for Payment of Medical Bills
In University of Michigan Regents v Victor Valentino, J.D., P.C., in an Order issued March 27, 2019 (Docket No. 158052), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a provider’s suit for conversion against a plaintiff attorney was not precluded by the No-Fault Act or Covenant v State Farm, 500 Mich 191 (2017). Although a provider has no statutory cause of action against an insurer under the No-Fault Act, the Act does permit insurers to directly pay providers on the injured person’s behalf. Since the check for medical bills at issue was made payable to two or more persons, it may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced, only by all of them. MCL 440.3110(4). As such, the plaintiff, as a joint payee on the check, had a right to control the funds.