accrued claim in Michigan

2019Shah, 324 Mich App at 199-201 ; see also Henry Ford Health System v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398, 410-411 ; 927 NW2d 717 (2018) (following the precedent of Shah and concluding that “the antiassignment clause in defendant’s insurance policy is unenforceable because it is against public policy to the extent that it attempts to restrict the insured’s ability to assign an accrued claim”).5 This case presents circumstances similar to those in Shah, 324 Mich App at 196-201 , which construed the same antiassignment clause and resolved an identical issue.

2019Shah, 324 Mich App at 199-201 ; see also Henry Ford Health System v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398, 410-411 ; 927 NW2d 717 (2018) (following the precedent of Shah and concluding that “the antiassignment clause in defendant’s insurance policy is unenforceable because it is against public policy to the extent that it attempts to restrict the insured’s ability to assign an accrued claim”).5 This case presents circumstances similar to those in Shah, 324 Mich App at 196-201 , which construed the same antiassignment clause and resolved an identical issue.

2020Plaintiff responded that contractual provisions barring the post-loss assignment of an accrued claim to payment of insurance benefits are unenforceable as against public policy under Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 200 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018).

2019This Court held that anti-assignment clauses in no-fault insurance policies were unenforceable if they prohibit “an assignment after the loss occurred of an accrued 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.” Id. at 200.

2020Why it matters that the anti-assignment clause was found in the original insurance contract (Shah) or in a subsequent settlement agreement (here) is lost on me, given that the key feature—the insured “had an accrued claim against his [or her] insurer for payment of healthcare services that had already been provided before [the insured] executed the assignment,” Shah, 324 Mich App at 200—is the same in both situations.

2020Plaintiff responded that contractual provisions barring the post-loss assignment of an accrued claim to payment of insurance benefits are unenforceable as against public policy under Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 200 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018).

2019While AAA’s appeal to this Court was pending, a panel of this Court issued an opinion in Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018), lv pending 503 Mich 882 ; 918 NW2d 528 (2018), concluding that an antiassignment clause, which is identical to the one at issue in the instant case, is “unenforceable to prohibit the assignment that occurred here—an assignment after the loss occurred of an accrued 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[]” in Roger Will

2019While AAA’s appeal to this Court was pending, a panel of this Court issued an opinion in Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018), lv pending 503 Mich 882 ; 918 NW2d 528 (2018), concluding that an antiassignment clause, which is identical to the one at issue in the instant case, is “unenforceable to prohibit the assignment that occurred here—an assignment after the loss occurred of an accrued 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[]” in Roger Will

2019This Court held in Shah that “the antiassignment clause in the instant case is unenforceable to prohibit the assignment that occurred here—an assignment after the loss occurred of an accrued 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.” -5- Shah, 324 Mich App at 200 , citing Roger Williams, 43 Mich at 254 and Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 469-471 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2019Roger Williams, 43 Mich at 254 ; Rory, 473 Mich at 469-471 . [Shah, 324 Mich App at 200 .1] Additionally, in Henry Ford Health Sys v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398 , 410- 411; 927 NW2d 717 (2018), this Court reaffirmed its holding in Shah and concluded that an antiassignment clause in an insurance policy is “unenforceable because it is against public policy to the extent that it attempts to restrict the insured’s ability to assign an accrued claim.” Therefore, consistent with Shah and Henry Ford Health Sys, the antiassignment clause in this 1 We acknowledge defendant’s contention that