BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FALLS LAKE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,
and MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FALLS LAKE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
and MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.
BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees,
and FALLS LAKE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Nos. 356319, 356333, 356334, 356341
Court of Appeals of Michigan
June 23, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. 2020-000015-NF, 2020-000082-NF
Before: Cameron, P.J., and Cavanagh and Gadola, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals[1] involve Bronson Health Care Group, Inc.'s attempt to recover payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., for medical services provided to a pedestrian who was involved in a motor vehicle accident. In Docket No. 356319, Falls Lake National Insurance Company appeals the trial court's order granting summary disposition and awarding judgment in favor of Bronson, and the order granting summary disposition in favor of the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and Michigan Automobile
Insurance Placement Facility (collectively MAIPF). In Docket No. 356341, Falls Lake again appeals the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of MAIPF. In Docket Nos. 356333 and 356334, Bronson also appeals the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of MAIPF and dismissing it from the case.
On appeal, Falls Lake argues that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of Bronson and MAIPF because the insurance policy at issue was effectively canceled before the accident occurred. Moreover, Falls Lake asserts that the trial court erred by awarding Bronson a monetary judgment for its medical charges because a factual dispute remained regarding the reasonableness of the charges and whether the charges were customary. Finally, Falls Lake argues that the trial court erred by awarding Bronson attorney fees because there was factual uncertainty regarding the existence of an insurance policy. Bronson argues that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of MAIPF and dismissing it from the case because, in the event that Falls Lake succeeds in obtaining a reversal of the order directing Falls Lake to pay Bronson's charges, then it is undisputed that the MAIPF must pay the charges instead. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's orders granting summary disposition and judgment in favor of Bronson and summary disposition and dismissal in favor of MAIPF.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of a vehicle-pedestrian accident that occurred in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in March 2019. Morris House stepped into the street and was struck by a vehicle driven by Oshay Samuel Jackson. House was transported by ambulance to Bronson for medical treatment. According to Bronson's complaint, the charges for the medical treatment provided to House amounted to $59,567.98. It appears that House was not insured and was not domiciled with an insured relative. As a result, Bronson[2] sought to collect payment from Jackson's insurer, Falls Lake. However, Falls Lake denied the claim on the basis that no insurance policy for Jackson was available.
Jackson obtained a no-fault insurance policy from Falls Lake in November 2018. The policy was to remain active from November 21, 2018 until May 21, 2019. On December 7, 2018, Falls Lake sent a letter to Jackson informing him that the policy would be canceled if the monthly premium was not paid by December 21, 2018. It appears that Jackson failed to pay the monthly premium for the policy, and Falls Lake considered the policy canceled for nonpayment as of December 22, 2018. On January 7, 2019, Falls Lake sent Jackson a check for $14.87. The document's comment line stated that it was a refund on Jackson's account, followed by his account number. The second line stated "REFUND ON CANCELLED POLICY." Jackson cashed the check on January 17, 2019.
Bronson filed a complaint against Falls Lake seeking payment for the medical services provided to House following the accident. In addition to the principal amount of $59,567.98, Bronson sought interest, costs, and attorney fees because Falls Lake unreasonably denied or
delayed payment. In addition, Bronson filed a similar complaint against MAIPF,[3] noting that Falls Lake denied its claim, but contending that it was still entitled to payment for the medical services provided to House. The trial court consolidated the cases against Falls Lake and MAIPF.
The parties filed cross motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). In Falls Lake's motion, it argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because there was no question that the policy was canceled because of nonpayment before the accident occurred. According to Falls Lake, Jackson cashed the premium refund check, which constituted his mutual assent to cancellation of the policy.
Bronson argued that it was entitled to summary disposition against Falls Lake because Falls Lake's purported cancellation notice was sent 14 days before payment of the premium was due. As a result, the preemptive cancellation notice did not comply with the strict requirements of MCL 500.3020(1)(b). MAIPF agreed with Bronson in regard to Falls Lake's responsibility for House's no-fault benefits. MAIPF argued that, contrary to Falls Lake's contention, the policy was never canceled in the manner required by MCL 500.3020, and, as such, coverage remained in effect during the time that House was injured in the accident with Jackson. In addition, MAIPF moved for summary disposition against Bronson. According to MAIPF, because Bronson was entitled to coverage through Falls Lake, MAIPF could not, as a matter of law, be liable for payment of no-fault benefits for House's medical expenses. Therefore, MAIPF asked to be dismissed from the case.
In a hearing concerning the parties' motions for summary disposition, the trial court first concluded that Falls Lake's cancellation of the policy was not sufficient under the statute, and therefore, Falls Lake was responsible for payment of no-fault benefits to Bronson. The court explained that MCL 500.3020 required that the insured be provided with notice that included a window in which he or she can either cure the default or obtain other insurance. The trial court did not believe that cashing the refund check constituted an acceptance of the cancellation. As a result, the policy remained active at the time the accident occurred. Accordingly, the trial court determined that Bronson was entitled to summary disposition against...
