Heightened liability limits for pre-existing policies on May argument roster

Liability coverage limits for pre-existing auto insurance policies and a pair of parental termination cases are among the four matters on the agenda for May arguments at the Michigan Supreme Court.

The court convenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 8. Arguments will be heard in the Supreme Court courtroom on the 6th floor of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing.

Information below is based on case summaries provided by the court. Michigan Lawyers Weekly numbers are provided where possible. The full schedule and further details on the cases can be found on the court’s website .

Wednesday, Ma y 8 morning session

Pinebrook Warren, LLC v City of Warren ( MiLW 07-105817 ) After the plaintiffs were not granted licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Warren, they sued the city, its Medical Marihuana Review Committee and the members of the committee. They plaintiffs alleged due process violations and violations of the Open Meetings Act , or OMA, MCL 15.261. Those entities that received licenses intervened.

The issue regarding the OMA was whether the review committee was subject to the OMA as a “public body” as defined in MCL 15.262(a) . The Macomb County Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary disposition and denied the city’s cross-motion for summary disposition, finding that the review committee was a public body and violated the OMA.

In a 2-1 published opinion , the Court of Appeals reversed, saying the trial court erred by holding that the review committee was a public body subject to the OMA.The appeals court reversed the grant of summary disposition to the plaintiffs, vacated the trial court’s opinion and order, reversed the trial court’s decision on the motions for reconsideration, and vacated the invalidation of the City Council’s initial licensing decisions.

Argument will address whether the City of Warren’s Medical Marihuana Review Committee was a “public body” as defined by MCL 15.262(a), subject to the Open Meetings Act.

 

In re Bates, Minors ( MiLW 08-106625 / MiLW 08-107522 ) The Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS, filed a petition to remove the respondent-mother’s children from her care. DHHS sought to terminate mother’s parental rights due to substance abuse and mental health issues and an inability to care for her children’s health care needs.

One child was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and had to be hospitalized while in mother’s care; she pled guilty to third-degree child abuse and served time in jail.

Following a termination hearing, the Grand Traverse Circuit Court found that there were statutory grounds to terminate mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j) . The trial court concluded that termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, even though the children were placed with their father, who was divorced from mother.

Mother appealed, disputing whether there were statutory grounds to terminate her parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a 2-1 unpublished opinion . The appeals court denied the mother’s motion for reconsideration, which challenged the trial court’s determination that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Mother then filed an application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the appeals court for consideration of whether the trial court clearly erred by concluding that termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals on remand affirmed the trial court in a 2-1 unpublished opinion .

Argument will address whether, when a child is in the care of a relative, the trial court is required to consider and eliminate available alternative remedies short of termination as a matter of constitutional due process or statute, and if the trial court erred here.

 

In re D N Dailey, Minor In April 2019, the DHHS filed a petition asking the trial court to assume jurisdiction over the respondents’ minor child.The child has been in his maternal grandmother’s care throughout the case.The respondents entered pleas of admission saying the child was born with drugs in his system, they continued to abuse heroin, and their continued drug use impaired their ability to care for the child.The Wayne County Circuit Court accepted the pleas and found statutory grounds to assume jurisdiction over the child.

During a later dispositional hearing, the respondents were ordered to comply with a treatment plan to address their substance abuse issues and improve their parenting skills.

In November 2019, the permanency plan was changed from reunification to adoption.DHHS filed a supplemental petition in January 2020, seeking termination of the respondents’ parental rights.The respondents entered pleas of admission and stipulated that statutory grounds existed to support termination of their parental rights under MCL712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).

The Wayne County court accepted the pleas and found clear and convincing evidence to terminate the respondents’ parental rights.A best-interests hearing was held in March and July 2022; the trial court found termination of the respondents’ parentalrights was in the child’s best interests.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion . The respondent-father filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court erred by upholding termination as in the child’s best interests despite his close bond with the child and the child’s placement with a relative.The respondent-father claimed the trial court should have at least ordered a guardianship and erred by failing to determine whether termination of his parental rights was the best available option.

Argument will address whether, when a child is in the care of a relative, the trial court is required to consider and eliminate available alternative remedies short of termination as a matter of constitutional due process or statute; and whether the trial court erred here.

 

Progressive Marathon Ins Co v. John Pena ( MiLW 07-106357 ) Brittney Giddings rear-ended a vehicle in August 2020, propelling it into oncoming traffic, where it collided with a motorcycle operated by John Michael Pena and occupied by Krystle Sewell.

Pena and Sewell sought personal protection insurance, or PIP, benefits from Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, which insured Giddings’ vehicle pursuant to a six-month insurance policy that became effective on March 11, 2020, and expired Sept. 11, 2020.In addition to unlimited PIP benefits, the policy provided bodily injury liability coverage limited to $20,000 for any one person and $40,000 for any one accident.

In a negligence action against Giddings, Pena and Sewell sought damages for bodily injury. Progressive filed a separate lawsuit against Pena, Sewell and Giddings, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to provide liability coverage for any amount above the $20,000/$40,000 bodily injury limits stated in the policy.

But Pena and Sewell claimed the bodily injury liability limits were $250,000/$500,000 according to the amendment of MCL 500.3009 that raised minimum bodily injury liability limits in automobile policies, effective after July 1, 2020.

The Tuscola Circuit Court granted summary disposition in favor of Pena and Sewell. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed in a published opinion , finding that legislative reforms regarding tort liability under the no-fault act affect only policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2020.

Argument will address whether auto policies delivered or issued for delivery prior to July 2, 2020, that insure against loss “resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle,” are subject to heightened liability coverage limits effective after July 1, 2020.

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.