Experience, expertise and common sense.
Motor Vehicle Litigation / August 8, 2018
Court/Case No: Oakland County Circuit Court/17-160604-NF
Tried/Argued Before: Judge
Verdict: $0 - Motion for Summary Disposition granted
Name of Judge(s): Honorable Phyllis C. McMillen
Keys to the Case:
This was a first-party lawsuit filed by a non-emergency medical transportation service as a result of a motor vehicle accident occurring on May 15, 2016, wherein the insured family (comprised of 5 individuals) all claimed significant injuries. As a result of the aforementioned accident, the insureds began treating with a doctor, who in turn prescribed the insureds non-emergency transportation services to get to/from medical appointments.
Over the course of litigation in the insureds’ lawsuit, the insureds all testified that the only reason they made use of Plaintiff’s services was because their doctor had indicated that such services would be available to them. Moreover, the insureds further admitted at their respective depositions that not only were they medically capable of driving, but also that there were motor vehicles garaged at their residence that they were capable of using to get to/from medical appointments. Based on the insureds’ testimony, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that Plaintiff would be unable to meet its burden at the time of trial as there was no evidence to support a finding that the insureds reasonably needed the non-emergency medical transportation services, as is required under MCL 500.3107.
In response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition, Plaintiff relied upon the disability scripts executed by the insureds’ doctor as the basis for why the non-emergency medical transportation services were reasonably necessary. In addition to this contention, Plaintiff also argued that the insureds were not medical professionals and, as such, their respective testimony did not prevent Plaintiff from continuing to pursue its claim as against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant would be liable pursuant to the automobile insurance policy and MCL 500.3107.
After hearing the respective parties’ arguments on the matter, the Court determined that although services may have been rendered, the insureds’ testimony regarding the non-emergency medical transportation services ultimately prevented Plaintiff from pursuing a no-fault claim against the Defendant directly and, thus, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice.
Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case: