No-fault insurance; PIP benefits; Attendant care; One-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145; Requests for admission; MCR 2.312(D); Assignment; Consolidated actions; Misnomer doctrine; Directed verdict motion

The court held that the trial court erred by denying one defendant-insurer’s (Home-Owners) motion for a directed verdict, but that judgment should be entered against the other defendant-insurer (Auto-Owners) for attendant-care services provided to one insured only. Plaintiff-healthcare provider sued Auto-Owners for no-fault PIP benefits for attendant-care services, even though Home-Owners was the insureds’ actual no-fault insurer, and the insureds sued Home-Owners in a separate case. The two related actions were later consolidated. On remand from the Supreme Court, the court first held that the consolidation did not merge plaintiff’s provider action with the insureds’ action because “‘consolidated cases should retain their separate identities[,]’” and the cases “remained separate matters consolidated for efficiency purposes.” Thus, plaintiff could recover only for services provided to the insured who had assigned her claim before suit was filed, not the other insured whose assignment was not filed until years later. The court next held that Auto-Owners’ erroneous admissions that it insured the claimants remained binding because “a trial court cannot disregard a judicial admission unless there has been a formal withdrawal or amendment,” and Auto-Owners never moved to withdraw or amend under MCR 2.312(D)(1). As a result, “for purposes of this case Auto-Owners was the responsible insurer,” even though it had no contract with the insureds. The court also held that the misnomer doctrine did not apply because it is “inapplicable to the substitution or addition of new or different parties,” and plaintiff sued “the wrong insurer.” Finally, the court held that Home-Owners’ directed-verdict motion was procedurally proper because “proofs had been presented, in the form of medical bills establishing the dates of service,” and the undisputed evidence allowed the trial court to decide the one-year-back issue. Reversed and remanded for entry of an order adding Auto-Owners back as a defendant and entering judgment against Auto-Owners for attendant-care services provided to the one insured only.