Third-party claim for no-fault benefits; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3); Laches; Williamstown Twp v Sandalwood Ranch, LLC; Whether services were lawfully rendered; MCL 500.3157; Cherry v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; “Person”; MCL 500.3157(15)(h); Licensing under MCL 333.17748(1); “Manufacturer”; MCL 333.17706(1); “Wholesale distributor”; MCL 333.17709(7); Allowable expenses; MCL 500.3107(1)(a); Whether an allowable expense is compensable; Nasser v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Whether an expense is “reasonably necessary”; ZCD Transp, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by concluding that intervening plaintiff-service provider (EQMD) did not provide a compensable no-fault benefit, that it correctly granted defendant-insurer (State Farm) summary disposition, and that it did not abuse its discretion by denying EQMD’s motion for reconsideration. EQMD intervened in the underlying no-fault case seeking payment for services provided to plaintiffs during their treatment for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident. The trial court concluded that EQMD did not provide a compensable no-fault benefit and dismissed its claims against State Farm. It also granted State Farm summary disposition of EQMD’s claims based upon the doctrine of laches. On appeal, the court rejected EQMD’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying reconsideration of its decision to grant summary disposition based on laches. The trial court “repeatedly told EQMD’s attorney he had two weeks to file EQMD’s intervening complaint. EQMD failed to do so.” In addition, EQMD “controlled the late entry of the order granting intervention.” Further, State Farm “sufficiently demonstrated prejudice from EQMD’s late filing of its intervening complaint.” The court also rejected EQMD’s claim that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition when it found EQMD provided unlicensed services under the Public Health Code, which were rendered unlawfully and, thus, noncompensable under the No-Fault Act. “EQMD failed to establish that it did not serve as a manufacturer or wholesale distributor requiring licensure in Michigan, and summary disposition would have been proper on this ground.” Given EQMD’s “admissions, and the testimony of its president, EQMD failed to carry its burden of proving the reasonable necessity of its service or that it provided such for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” Affirmed.