 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Muci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.7/21/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Saad, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Smolenski, JJ.
In this action under the Michigan no-fault automobile insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., plaintiff's no-fault insurer, defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, appeals by leave granted the order granting defendant's motion for a medical examination of plaintiff, subject to several conditions, pursuant to MCR 2.311. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 15, 2002. Defendant initially paid personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to plaintiff, but subsequently refused to pay benefits. Plaintiff filed the present action on February 11, 2003, alleging that defendant "unreasonably refused to pay PIP benefits to which she is entitled under the no-fault act, notwithstanding her submission of reasonable proof." In its affirmative defenses, defendant stated in part that plaintiff "is not presently entitled to any no-fault benefits as she has failed to supply the Defendant with reasonable proof of her claims and proof of the fact and amount of the loss sustained as required under the Michigan No-fault Act, MCL 500.3142(1)."
On July 10, 2003, defendant filed a "Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examinations" pursuant to MCL 500.3151 of the no-fault act. Defendant alleged that it "made many attempts to schedule the Plaintiff to undergo medical examinations, but the Plaintiff declined unless the Defendant agreed to enter into a Stipulation with numerous limitations that are contrary to the pertinent provisions of the Michigan No-Fault Act and prejudicial to the Defendant's ability to investigate the Plaintiff's claims." Defendant claimed that it had a statutory right under MCL 500.3151 to examine plaintiff and that the no-fault act did not authorize the imposition of conditions on the medical examination. Plaintiff responded by arguing that MCR 2.311 allows the trial court to impose conditions on medical examinations and that the conditions plaintiff sought to impose were reasonable and did not prejudice defendant.
The trial court allowed the medical examinations, but imposed several conditions, citing MCR 2.311. Of import to this appeal are conditions that allow plaintiff's counsel to be present at the examinations, allow videotaping of the examinations, and preclude plaintiff from giving defendant's examiners an oral account of the accident or her medical history.
I.
Defendant argues that MCL 500.3151 gives an insurer a substantive right to examine a claimant and that a court has no authority to impose conditions on the medical examination under MCR 2.311 if the insurer's request is reasonable. This case presents issues regarding statutory interpretation of the Michigan no-fault insurance act. This Court reviews issues involving the interpretation and application of a statute or court rule de novo as a question of law. People v Phillips, 468 Mich 583, 587; 663 NW2d 463 (2003). The primary rule of statutory construction is that, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be applied as written. Putkamer v Transamerica Ins Corp, 454 Mich 626, 631; 563 NW2d 683 (1997). Similarly, where contract language is neither ambiguous, nor contrary to the no-fault statute, the will of the parties, as reflected in their agreement, is to be carried out, and thus the contract is enforced as written. Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Nikkel, 460 Mich 558, 566-567; 596 NW2d 915 (1999).
Michigan's no-fault act is designed to regulate the insurance of motor vehicles in this state and the payment of benefits resulting from accidents involving motor vehicles.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|