Estate of Mildred Lyle v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 19, 2019
• Docket: 343358
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

ESTATE OF MILDRED LYLE, by CHERI LYLE UNPUBLISHED HUDNUT, Personal Representative, September 19, 2019

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and No. 343358 Wayne Circuit Court MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE, PC, LC No. 17-017579-NI and VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC.,

Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, WILLIE FRANK WILLIAMS, and MOTOR CITY TOWING SERVICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and SWARTZLE, JJ.

SWARTZLE, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. Writing in dissent in Lansing Schools Education Association v Lansing Board of Education, 487 Mich 349; 792 NW2d 686 (2010), Justice Corrigan aptly observed that our current standing jurisprudence is a “broad and amorphous principle that promises to be nearly impossible to apply in a society that operates under the rule of law.” Id. at 417 (CORRIGAN, J., dissenting); see also Olsen v Jude & Reed, LLC, 325 Mich App 170, 193 n 7; 924 NW2d 889 (2018). With that said, the majority faithfully sets out the standard crafted in that case, and I agree that the medical providers have met our current standard.

-1- As for intervention, I do not agree that the medical providers have established grounds for permissive intervention under MCR 2.209(B). There is no suggestion that “a Michigan statute or court rule confers a conditional right to intervene,” MCR 2.209(B)(1), and therefore the medical providers must rely on MCR 2.209(B)(2). Yet, the medical providers have not identified a specific, viable “claim or defense” of their own, and this is a necessary condition of permissive intervention under MCR 2.209(B)(2). I do agree with my colleagues, however, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting intervention under MCR 2.209(A).

Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-2-