The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will begin the 2024-25 session by hearing oral arguments in 11 cases on Wednesday, Oct. 9 and Thursday, Oct. 10.
Continuing a longtime tradition, the first case will be heard in the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the State Capitol Building located in the east wing of the 3rd floor following a presentation of the Annual Report of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society.
The remaining cases will be heard in the 6th floor courtroom at the Michigan Hall of Justice Lansing, and will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page. The court has provided a brief account of the initial case. In its comments, the court noted the account may not reflect the way that some or all of the seven justices view the case.
The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case, the court added.
In the initial case from Kalamazoo County, defendants William Buie and Conklin Benham, PC, represented plaintiff Hark Orchids and its insurance carriers in a workers’ compensation case involving Antoinette Wright.
The plaintiff and Wright settled the workers’ compensation case, but Wright filed a subsequent lawsuit against the plaintiff, raising employment-related civil rights claims.
The plaintiff filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, contending that it was forced to pay over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs to another law firm to defend the subsequent lawsuit filed by Wright because the defendants did not warn the plaintiff that Wright intended to bring other claims and did not include the other claims in the workers’ compensation settlement agreement.
Although Wright’s lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, the plaintiff contended that the claims would have been resolved sooner at less cost if not for the alleged legal malpractice.
The plaintiff sought damages in the form of attorney fees and costs, which it alleged were necessary to mitigate its damages.
The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing, among other things, that the attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in the employment lawsuit are not a proper element of damages in a legal malpractice lawsuit because the plaintiff’s complaint did not allege fraudulent or malicious conduct on the part of the defendants.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition, holding that the damages sought by the plaintiff were not appropriate.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the plaintiff was required to plead that the defendants engaged in malicious, fraudulent, or similarly wrongful conduct to survive a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and that the plaintiff alleged only that the defendants were negligent.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether in this legal malpractice action there is a basis on which attorney fees may be recoverable damages absent allegations of malicious, fraudulent, or similarly wrongful conduct; and (2) whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
Another case scheduled for arguments before the high court is from Macomb County.
Spine Specialists of Michigan provided medical care to a patient who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident. The patient was insured under a policy of no-fault insurance issued by MemberSelect Insurance Co.
According to court records, Spine Specialists sued MemberSelect for no-fault personal protection insurance benefits for the medical care that Spine Specialists provided to MemberSelect’s insured.
The treatment was provided in April and May 2019, and Spine Specialists filed suit in September 2020.
MemberSelect moved for summary disposition, arguing that the one-year-back rule of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3145, precluded recovery. In response, Spine Specialists relied on the amended version of MCL 500.3145(3), which took effect on June 11, 2019, and tolls the running of the one-year-back period until the insurer “formally denies” the claim.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of MemberSelect on claims for services rendered before that date.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion, holding that the amended version of the one-year-back rule does not apply to claims that accrued before its effective date. On the same date of that decision, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Encompass Healthcare, PLLC v Citizens Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___ (Docket No. 357225, rel’d November 17, 2022), which includes a footnote stating that the amended version of the one-year-back rule applied to claims that accrued in 2018 because the plaintiff filed its complaint after the statute was amended on June 11, 2019.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(3), does not apply to claims for personal protection insurance no-fault benefits that accrued, MCL 500.3110(4), before the amendment to § 3145 took effect on June 11, 2019.
Continuing a longtime tradition, the first case will be heard in the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the State Capitol Building located in the east wing of the 3rd floor following a presentation of the Annual Report of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society.
The remaining cases will be heard in the 6th floor courtroom at the Michigan Hall of Justice Lansing, and will be livestreamed from the MSC website.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page. The court has provided a brief account of the initial case. In its comments, the court noted the account may not reflect the way that some or all of the seven justices view the case.
The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case, the court added.
In the initial case from Kalamazoo County, defendants William Buie and Conklin Benham, PC, represented plaintiff Hark Orchids and its insurance carriers in a workers’ compensation case involving Antoinette Wright.
The plaintiff and Wright settled the workers’ compensation case, but Wright filed a subsequent lawsuit against the plaintiff, raising employment-related civil rights claims.
The plaintiff filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, contending that it was forced to pay over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs to another law firm to defend the subsequent lawsuit filed by Wright because the defendants did not warn the plaintiff that Wright intended to bring other claims and did not include the other claims in the workers’ compensation settlement agreement.
Although Wright’s lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, the plaintiff contended that the claims would have been resolved sooner at less cost if not for the alleged legal malpractice.
The plaintiff sought damages in the form of attorney fees and costs, which it alleged were necessary to mitigate its damages.
The defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing, among other things, that the attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in the employment lawsuit are not a proper element of damages in a legal malpractice lawsuit because the plaintiff’s complaint did not allege fraudulent or malicious conduct on the part of the defendants.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition, holding that the damages sought by the plaintiff were not appropriate.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, holding that the plaintiff was required to plead that the defendants engaged in malicious, fraudulent, or similarly wrongful conduct to survive a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and that the plaintiff alleged only that the defendants were negligent.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether in this legal malpractice action there is a basis on which attorney fees may be recoverable damages absent allegations of malicious, fraudulent, or similarly wrongful conduct; and (2) whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
Another case scheduled for arguments before the high court is from Macomb County.
Spine Specialists of Michigan provided medical care to a patient who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident. The patient was insured under a policy of no-fault insurance issued by MemberSelect Insurance Co.
According to court records, Spine Specialists sued MemberSelect for no-fault personal protection insurance benefits for the medical care that Spine Specialists provided to MemberSelect’s insured.
The treatment was provided in April and May 2019, and Spine Specialists filed suit in September 2020.
MemberSelect moved for summary disposition, arguing that the one-year-back rule of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3145, precluded recovery. In response, Spine Specialists relied on the amended version of MCL 500.3145(3), which took effect on June 11, 2019, and tolls the running of the one-year-back period until the insurer “formally denies” the claim.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of MemberSelect on claims for services rendered before that date.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion, holding that the amended version of the one-year-back rule does not apply to claims that accrued before its effective date. On the same date of that decision, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Encompass Healthcare, PLLC v Citizens Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___ (Docket No. 357225, rel’d November 17, 2022), which includes a footnote stating that the amended version of the one-year-back rule applied to claims that accrued in 2018 because the plaintiff filed its complaint after the statute was amended on June 11, 2019.
The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(3), does not apply to claims for personal protection insurance no-fault benefits that accrued, MCL 500.3110(4), before the amendment to § 3145 took effect on June 11, 2019.
