antiassignment clause in Michigan

2019In Shah, 324 Mich App at 196-210 , this Court addressed the validity and enforceability of the antiassignment clause used by defendant in its insurance policies.

2019In Shah, this Court opined that the anti-assignment clause at issue was unambiguous, but ultimately determined that “the antiassignment clause in the instant case is unenforceable to prohibit . . . an assignment after the loss occurred of an accrued claim to payment [for medical treatment]—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 .

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.

2019This Court recently decided this issue in Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 200 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018).2 This Court concluded that an antiassignment clause is unenforceable to prohibit the assignment of an accrued claim because such a prohibition on assignments violates public policy as set forth in Michigan’s common law.

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

2019The Shah Court relied on our Supreme Court’s decision in Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252, 254 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), which held that an antiassignment clause is unenforceable when the assignment applies to an accrued cause of action.

2019The Shah Court relied on our Supreme Court’s decision in Roger Williams Ins Co v Carrington, 43 Mich 252, 254 ; 5 NW 303 (1880), which held that an antiassignment clause is unenforceable when the assignment applies to an accrued cause of action.

2019The antiassignment clause in the insurance policy states: “No assignment of benefits or other transfer of rights is binding upon us unless approved by us.” “Insurance policies are contracts and, in the absence of an applicable statute, are subject to the same contract construction principles that apply to any other species of contract.” Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547, 554 ; 817 NW2d 562 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[O]ur Supreme Court has . . . recognized that ‘courts are to enforce the agreement as written absent some highly unusual circumstance such as a contract in vi

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

2019Roger Williams, 43 Mich at 254 ; Rory, 473 Mich at 469-471 . [Shah, 324 Mich App at 200 .] Additionally, in Henry Ford Health Sys v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398, 405 ; 927 NW2d 717 (2018), app held in abeyance ___ Mich ___; 926 NW2d 258 (2019), this Court recently reaffirmed its holding in Shah, and “conclude[d] that the antiassignment clause in [the] defendant’s policy [was] unenforceable because it [was] contrary to public policy.” Therefore, consistent with Shah and Henry Ford Health, the antiassignment clause in this case violates Michigan public policy because an antiassignment

2019Henry Ford Health Sys v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398, 405 ; 927 NW2d 717 (2018), held in abeyance 926 NW2d 258 (2019) (“Accordingly, we must conclude that the antiassignment clause in defendant’s policy is unenforceable because it is contrary to public policy.”).7 The language of Everest’s auto insurance policy is clear and unambiguous.

2018In this case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition *164 and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint because the trial court concluded that the antiassignment clause prohibited any assignment from Hensley and that any claims based on such an assignment would be time-barred nonetheless. *209 ''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. Holden , 247 Mic

2018In this case, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition *164 and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint because the trial court concluded that the antiassignment clause prohibited any assignment from Hensley and that any claims based on such an assignment would be time-barred nonetheless. *209 ''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. Holden , 247 Mic