 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. v. American Community Mutual Insurance Co.6/17/2003
UNPUBLISHED
These consolidated appeals involve a dispute between two insurance companies with respect to the coverage of medical expenses incurred by Nicholas DeVries and Michael Corso in two separate and unrelated automobile accidents. In Docket No. 237926, defendant appeals by leave granted and plaintiff cross-appeals the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary disposition and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary disposition. In Docket No. 238104, plaintiff appeals as of right and defendant cross-appeals the same order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
I. Facts and Procedure
The basic facts of these cases are uncontested. DeVries and Corso each had no-fault insurance policies with plaintiff and health insurance policies with defendant. Both DeVries and Corso were injured in separate and unrelated automobile accidents, DeVries as a passenger in an automobile and Corso as the driver of an automobile. Plaintiff provided benefits on behalf of DeVries and Corso for the injuries sustained as a result of their respective automobile accidents. Plaintiff then sought to recoup the medical expenses it paid on behalf of DeVries and Corso from defendant. When defendant refused to reimburse plaintiff, plaintiff brought the instant action.
Both parties filed motions for summary disposition. After declaring that defendant's insurance policy was clear and unambiguous, the trial court ordered that plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for its payment of benefits on behalf of DeVries because DeVries was a passenger in the vehicle and was not excluded from coverage under defendant's policy, but that plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for its payment of benefits on behalf of Corso because Corso was the driver of the vehicle and was excluded under defendant's policy. The trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary disposition and granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary disposition.
II. Analysis
Both parties contend that the trial court erred in granting partial summary disposition in favor of the opposing party.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Libralter Plastics, Inc v Chubb Group of Ins Cos, 199 Mich App 482, 485; 502 NW2d 742 (1993). Affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence are considered in reviewing a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), and the evidence is viewed "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the documentary evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. [Universal Underwriters Group v Allstate Ins Co, 246 Mich App 713, 720; 635 NW2d 52 (2001).]
"A trial court's grant or denial of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo on appeal." Liberty Mut Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 248 Mich App 35, 40; 638 NW2d 155 (2001). This case also involves the interpretation of an insurance contract and requires a determination of whether the insurance contract was ambiguous, which are questions of law that are also reviewed de novo on appeal. Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Nikkel, 460 Mich 558, 563; 596 NW2d 915 (1999); Morley v Automobile Club of Michigan, 458 Mich 459, 465; 581 NW2d 237 (1998).
The dispute in this case revolves around the
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|