Effect of an adverse party’s failure to file a response to a summary disposition motion; MCR 2.116(G)(4); Failure to address the merits of the trial court’s ruling; Intervention; MCR 2.209(A) & (B); Effect of the case being assigned to the business court; MCL 600.8031; MCL 600.8035(1) & (3)

The court rejected plaintiffs’ contention they were entitled to summary disposition on the basis that defendant-Weick did not file a response to their motion. It also found that appellate relief was precluded by their failure to address the merits of the trial court’s decision. It further held that the trial court did not err in granting two insurance companies’ motions to intervene and concluded “the fact that this case was assigned to business court did not preclude the trial court from considering or granting” the motions. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for Weick and the insurance companies. Plaintiffs sued Weick, a former employee, related to her offering “testimony in other cases involving litigation of” no-fault claims. In moving to intervene, the insurance companies alleged “plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Weick was impacting other litigation involving both” companies. On appeal, the court noted that, contrary “to plaintiffs’ argument, MCR 2.116(G)(4) does not require a trial court to grant summary disposition in favor of the moving party whenever the nonmoving party” does not respond to the motion. In addition, in their brief on appeal, plaintiffs did not address any of the several reasons the trial court gave for rejecting the merits of their claims and granting Weick and the insurance companies summary disposition. As to intervention, the court concluded “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the requirements of MCR 2.209(A)(3) were satisfied[.]” MCR 2.209(B)(2) also supported the trial court’s decision. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that intervention was inappropriate because the motions “involved an insurance dispute, which is expressly excluded from a business court’s jurisdiction under MCL 600.8031(3)[.]” The court determined that this “case did not involve an insurance dispute.” The insurance companies were not seeking “to litigate any insurance coverage claims or disputes by intervening” – they only sought to rebuff “plaintiffs’ efforts to prohibit Weick from participating as a witness and testifying about plaintiffs’ conduct in other cases.” The court added that, even if the “motions to intervene involved claims excluded under MCL 600.8031(3), that would not prevent the claims from being adjudicated in business court. This action was already assigned to the business court on the basis of plaintiffs’ allegations against Weick.”