This summary also appears under Litigation
Issues: Personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Motion to withdraw deemed admissions; MCR 2.312(A), (B)(1), & (D)(1); Medbury v. Walsh; Janczyk v. Davis; Bailey v. Schaaf; Unpreserved issue; Loutts v. Loutts; Vushaj v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co.; "Plain error" review; Local Emergency Fin. Assistance Loan Bd. v. Blackwell; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3); Macomb Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Anderson; Al-Maliki v. LaGrant
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Brooks-Wiley v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co.
e-Journal Number: 59520
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Donofrio, Riordan, and Gadola
In this action for PIP benefits, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant-insurer's summary disposition motion, holding that the trial court did not plainly err in denying the plaintiff's motion to withdraw her deemed admissions. Noting that the issue was not properly preserved, the court reviewed plaintiff's claim for plain error affecting her substantial rights. She "never moved the trial court to allow her to file a late response to defendant's request for admissions." She also failed to show "good cause that would compel the trial court to grant her motion to withdraw her deemed admissions. Throughout the proceedings below, plaintiff failed to comply with defendant's discovery requests." She did not file "any response to defendant's motion for summary disposition, and her counsel did not attend the hearing regarding defendant's motion for summary disposition." While defendant served its request for admissions on plaintiff on 3/6/13, she did not respond to the request until 8/20/13, nearly 5 months after defendant's request for admissions were deemed admitted under MCR 2.312(B)(1). "Further, plaintiff did not seek to withdraw her admissions until after the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition." While plaintiff also argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration, her "abject failure to comply with the court rules regarding timely response to a request for admissions" convinced the court otherwise.
© 2015 State Bar of Michigan