 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Versicherungs v. Lawson12/3/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
Defendants appeal by leave granted the trial court's order denying leave to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We reverse and remand for entry of an order dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
This case arose from a traffic accident involving one vehicle occupied by Ricki Ash and James Nicastri; one vehicle driven by Barry Maus, who was employed by the University of Michigan Regents; and a semi truck driven by defendant Cecil Lawson, who was employed by defendant American Beauty. Plaintiff in this case is the insurer of Maus and the Regents. Ash, Nicastri, and Lawson sued Maus and the Regents for their injuries; the cases were settled with plaintiff, on behalf of the Regents, paying Ash and Nicastri approximately $2.2 million together and paying defendant Lawson $85,000.
Plaintiff then filed a complaint against defendants for statutory contribution pursuant to MCL 600.2925a. Defendants answered, asserting inter alia that plaintiff "failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted." Several months later, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition that alleged plaintiff and the Regents had not complied with the notice requirements of the contribution statute. The motion was denied.
One year later, after the trial court's dispositive motion cut-off date, mediation, and settlement conferences, defendants moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Defendants argued that the 1995 tort reforms, specifically MCL 600.2956, MCL 600.2957(1), and MCL 600.6304(1), abrogated plaintiff's cause of action for contribution. Without addressing the substantive issue, the trial court denied defendants' motion, stating, "The period for raising such issues was long since passed. The case is ready for trial. The motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss based on this case law from over a year ago is denied. . . ." The trial court also issued an order denying defendants' motion to stay.
We review a trial court's refusal to allow further filings after a discovery deadline under an abuse of discretion standard. See e.g., Carmack v Macomb County Community College, 199 Mich App 544, 546; 502 NW2d 746 (1993). A decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Singerman v Municipal Serv Bureau, Inc, 455 Mich 135, 139; 565 NW2d 383 (1997). Questions regarding the interpretation and construction of statutes are questions of law, which this Court also reviews de novo. Stozicki v Allied Paper Co, 464 Mich 257, 263; 627 NW2d 293 (2001).
Whether the 1995 tort reform legislation permits contribution in cases where one tortfeasor settled with the injured party is a question of first impression for this Court. Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 159; 615 NW2d 702 (2000). We must first look to the language of the statute, affording the words their common and ordinary meaning. Stozicki, supra at 263; Nawrocki, supra. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it reflects the intent of the Legislature and judicial construction is not permitted. Michalski v Bar- Levav, 463 Mich 723, 731; 625 NW2d 754 (2001). Furthermore, this Court will not read anything into the statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as gathered from the act itself. In re S R, 229 Mich App 310, 314; 581 NW2d 291 (1998).
In its enactment of 1995 PA 161 and 1995 PA 249 (the "1995 tort reform legislation"), the Legislature made many changes to the Revised Judicature Act, including the elimination of joint liability in a variety of circumstances. See
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.
|
|