anti-assignment clause in Michigan

2019Plaintiff also argued that MCL 500.3143 did not preclude plaintiff’s recovery of no-fault benefits because Dothsuk incurred the charges for his medical services when he signed the assignments, and therefore the benefits were not for “benefits payable in the future[.]” Citing Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252, 253-254 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), plaintiff also asserted that the anti- assignment clause in the no-fault policy did not prevent Dothsuk from assigning his claims to plaintiff because “an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy does not prevent the insured from assigning the

2019In Roger Williams, our Supreme Court “held that an accrued cause of action may be freely assigned after the loss and that an anti-assignment clause is not enforceable to restrict such an assignment because such a clause violates public policy in that situation.” Id. at 200 , citing Roger Williams 43 Mich at 254 .

2018A statement is material if it is reasonably relevant to 1 This Court has recently held that an anti-assignment clause in a no-fault policy is unenforceable to prohibit an assignment that occurred after the loss or the accrual of the claim to payment “because such a prohibition of assignment violates Michigan public policy that is part of our common law as set forth by our Supreme Court.” Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2018) (Docket No. 340370); slip op at 9, citing Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252, 254 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), a

2018A statement is material if it is reasonably relevant to 1 This Court has recently held that an anti-assignment clause in a no-fault policy is unenforceable to prohibit an assignment that occurred after the loss or the accrual of the claim to payment “because such a prohibition of assignment violates Michigan public policy that is part of our common law as set forth by our Supreme Court.” Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2018) (Docket No. 340370); slip op at 9, citing Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252, 254 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), a

2019The court further ruled that although Covenant noted that healthcare providers could pursue benefits under an assignment of rights, the anti-assignment clause in the State Farm policy was plain and unambiguous, precluding VHS’s action predicated on the 1 In W A Foote Mem Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 321 Mich App 159, 196 ; 909 NW2d 38 (2017), this Court held “that Covenant applies retroactively.” 2 The clause provided that “[n]o assignment of benefits or other transfer of rights is binding upon us unless approved by us.” -2- assignment.3 Lastly, the trial court found that while VHS was an

2019The court further ruled that although Covenant noted that healthcare providers could pursue benefits under an assignment of rights, the anti-assignment clause in the State Farm policy was plain and unambiguous, precluding VHS’s action predicated on the 1 In W A Foote Mem Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 321 Mich App 159, 196 ; 909 NW2d 38 (2017), this Court held “that Covenant applies retroactively.” 2 The clause provided that “[n]o assignment of benefits or other transfer of rights is binding upon us unless approved by us.” -2- assignment.3 Lastly, the trial court found that while VHS was an

2018B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359 ; 586 NW2d 117 (1998).

2018B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359 ; 586 NW2d 117 (1998).

2018“If a trial court grants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), (C)(9), or (C)(10), the court must give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings pursuant to MCR 2.118, unless the amendment would be futile.” Yudashkin v Linzmeyer, 247 Mich App 642, 651 ; 637 NW2d 257 (2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also MCR 2.116(I)(5) (“If the grounds asserted are based on subrule (C)(8), (9), or (10), the court shall give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings as provided by MCR 2.118, unless the evidence then before the court shows that amendment would not

2018“If a trial court grants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), (C)(9), or (C)(10), the court must give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings pursuant to MCR 2.118, unless the amendment would be futile.” Yudashkin v Linzmeyer, 247 Mich App 642, 651 ; 637 NW2d 257 (2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also MCR 2.116(I)(5) (“If the grounds asserted are based on subrule (C)(8), (9), or (10), the court shall give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings as provided by MCR 2.118, unless the evidence then before the court shows that amendment would not

2018Walters, 481 Mich at 387 . -8- least two relatively recent9 opinions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 10 Century Indemnity Co v Aero-Motive Co, 318 F Supp 2d 530, 539 (WD Mich, 2003) (relying on Roger Williams while explaining that under Michigan law, “an anti-assignment clause will not be enforced where a loss occurs before the assignment, because in that situation the assignment of the claim under the policy is viewed no differently than any other assignment of an accrued cause of action.”); Action Auto Stores, Inc v United Capitol Ins Co, 845 F Supp

2018Walters, 481 Mich at 387 . -8- least two relatively recent9 opinions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 10 Century Indemnity Co v Aero-Motive Co, 318 F Supp 2d 530, 539 (WD Mich, 2003) (relying on Roger Williams while explaining that under Michigan law, “an anti-assignment clause will not be enforced where a loss occurs before the assignment, because in that situation the assignment of the claim under the policy is viewed no differently than any other assignment of an accrued cause of action.”); Action Auto Stores, Inc v United Capitol Ins Co, 845 F Supp

2018Jones, 353 Mich at 682 . -12- motion for summary disposition and defendant’s response to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint.

2018Jones, 353 Mich at 682 . -12- motion for summary disposition and defendant’s response to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint.

2019Farm Bureau asserts that Shah failed to address the effect the 2 Our Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument on whether to grant the appellant insurer’s application for leave, directing the parties to address “whether the anti-assignment clause in the defendant’s insurance policy precludes the defendant’s insured from assigning his right to recover no-fault personal protection insurance benefits to the plaintiff healthcare providers.” Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 503 Mich 882 ; 918 NW2d 528 (2018).

2018The circuit court denied the healthcare -6- providers’ motion to amend based on futility and granted summary disposition after determining that the insurance policy contained an anti-assignment clause and that any claims would be time- barred in any event by the one-year-back rule.7 Id., slip op at 4, 14.

2018Id. at ___; slip op at 9-10.

2018However, this Court held based on Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252 ; 5 NW2d 303 (1880), that “an accrued cause of action may be freely assigned after the loss and that an anti-assignment clause is not enforceable to restrict such assignment because such a clause violates public policy in that situation.” Shah, slip op at 9.

2016“Under general contract law, rights can be assigned unless the assignment is clearly restricted.” Burkhardt v Bailey, 260 Mich App 636, 652 ; 680 NW2d 453 (2004), citing Calamari -3- & Perillo, Contracts (3d ed), § 18-10, p 735.

2016“Under general contract law, rights can be assigned unless the assignment is clearly restricted.” Burkhardt v Bailey, 260 Mich App 636, 652 ; 680 NW2d 453 (2004), citing Calamari -3- & Perillo, Contracts (3d ed), § 18-10, p 735.