University of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino Jd Pc

Michigan Supreme Court

University of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino Jd Pc

924 N.W.2d 239

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 2019

DocketSC: 158052; COA: 339198

StatusPublished

This text of 924 N.W.2d 239 (University of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino Jd Pc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

University of Michigan Regents v. Victor P Valentino Jd Pc, 924 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the motion to respond to amici briefs is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment. The Court of Appeals found this Court's decision in Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co. , 500 Mich. 191 , 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017), "dispositive." Covenant held that a healthcare provider possesses no statutory cause of action against an insurer for recovery of PIP benefits. Plaintiff is a healthcare provider. But the plaintiff is not seeking payment from an insurance provider for no-fault benefits under a statutory no-fault theory. Rather, the plaintiff's complaint alleges a common-law tort-conversion-against the defendant, an attorney, based on the defendant's retention of one-third of the funds from a check that was made payable directly to both plaintiff and defendant. Although a healthcare provider has no statutory cause of action against an insurer to compel payment under the no-fault act, the act permits insurers to directly pay healthcare providers on the injured person's behalf. MCL 500.3112. The insurer did so here. "[I]f an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them ." MCL 440.3110(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the plaintiff, as joint payee, had a right to control the funds. Covenant is not dispositive on the question presented here. We REMAND this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

Bernstein, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On order of the Court, the motion to respond to amici briefs is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment. The Court of Appeals found this Court's decision in Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co. , 500 Mich. 191 , 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017), "dispositive." Covenant held that a healthcare provider possesses no statutory cause of action against an insurer for recovery of PIP benefits. Plaintiff is a healthcare provider. But the plaintiff is not seeking payment from an insurance provider for no-fault benefits under a statutory no-fault theory. Rather, the plaintiff's complaint alleges a common-law tort-conversion-against the defendant, an attorney, based on the defendant's retention of one-third of the funds from a check that was made payable directly to both plaintiff and defendant. Although a healthcare provider has no statutory cause of action against an insurer to compel payment under the no-fault act, the act permits insurers to directly pay healthcare providers on the injured person's behalf. MCL 500.3112. The insurer did so here. "[I]f an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them ." MCL 440.3110(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the plaintiff, as joint payee, had a right to control the funds. Covenant is not dispositive on the question presented here. We REMAND this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

Bernstein, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

924 N.W.2d 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/university-of-michigan-regents-v-victor-p-valentino-jd-pc-mich-2019.