First-party no-fault action; Real party in interest; MCR 2.201(B)(1); Assignment of rights; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; Contract enforceability presumption; Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc; Traditional contract defenses; Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Provider claim against patient; One-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145; Auto-Owners Ins Co v Compass Healthcare, PLC

The court held (1) that plaintiff was not the real party in interest after assigning the right to pursue no-fault benefits for the charges at issue to nonparty-Northland Radiology, (2) that defendant-insurer could invoke the real-party-in-interest rule even though it was not a party to the assignments, and (3) that plaintiff identified no traditional contract defense to avoid enforcement of the unambiguous assignment forms. Thus, dismissal was proper. Plaintiff received treatment at Northland Radiology from 3/29/22 through 6/22/23 and “every time he attended treatment” he executed an assignment of rights to Northland. After he added a first-party no-fault claim to his existing suit, defendant moved for summary disposition arguing Northland was “the real party in interest.” Plaintiff responded with an affidavit from a Northland representative asserting Northland “never viewed the alleged assignments as valid and enforceable” and did not attempt to enforce them. The trial court ruled the assignments were “valid and enforceable” and the affidavit was not a proper revocation. It barred Northland-related charges older than one year and the case later ended by stipulation. On appeal, plaintiff argued defendant could not enforce the assignments as a nonparty to them. The court rejected that framing, explaining defendant was not challenging validity but asserting the assignments’ effect under MCR 2.201(B)(1), which requires suit by the real party in interest. Relying on C-Spine, the court emphasized that “a plaintiff who assigns a claim cannot then bring suit to collect on that claim as that plaintiff is no longer the real party in interest.” In addition, “failure to bring suit in the name of the real party in interest is a ground for dismissal.” Plaintiff did not contend rescission or revocation occurred, and the court applied the rule that courts “‘presume the legality, validity, and enforceability of contracts,’” enforcing unambiguous assignments “as written” in the absence of “traditional contract defenses.” Plaintiff offered none. The court also rejected the policy claim that enforcement would expose him to collections, noting under Compass Healthcare any provider claim would still be a no-fault claim subject to the one-year-back rule, so any recovery against plaintiff would have expired by 6/22/24. Because the assignments controlled who could sue, defendant had standing to raise the real-party-in-interest defect. Affirmed.