Background
AdvisaCare Healthcare Solutions provided attendant care services to Carol and Sandra Schulz after they were injured in a motor vehicle accident. When the Schulzes’ insurer refused to pay, AdvisaCare filed a third-party no-fault claim under Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for those services. AdvisaCare, however, named the wrong company: it sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company when the actual insurer was Home-Owners Insurance Company, sister companies under the Auto-Owners Insurance Group umbrella.
The two cases were consolidated, and in July 2018 Auto-Owners admitted in responses to requests for admissions that it was the Schulzes’ no-fault insurer of highest priority. In November 2018, realizing the mistake, Auto-Owners tried to supplement its answers and retract the admissions. At trial, Home-Owners was substituted in for Auto-Owners, a jury awarded AdvisaCare $250,725.10 (including penalty interest), and the trial court also awarded attorney fees under MCL 500.3148. After two rounds of appellate opinions, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Court of Appeals, directing it to address four specific questions: (1) whether Auto-Owners created the one-year-back argument through false admissions; (2) whether consolidation merged the two cases so that Carol’s assignment ran to AdvisaCare; (3) whether the misnomer doctrine applied; and (4) whether Home-Owners’ directed-verdict motion was procedurally proper.
The Court’s Holding
On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Home-Owners’ directed-verdict motion and remanded for entry of judgment against Auto-Owners on Sandra’s claims only. On the four Supreme Court questions, the court answered as follows. First, Auto-Owners improperly withdrew its admission that it was the Schulzes’ insurer: the supplemental responses were not authorized under MCR 2.312 and were therefore ineffective, leaving Auto-Owners bound as the admitted insurer for purposes of the case. Second, the two consolidated cases did not merge into a single action. Michigan law treats consolidation as a trial-management device, not a merger; the pleadings in one case are not automatically pleadings in the other, so Carol’s assignment filed in her Ottawa County case could not supply standing in AdvisaCare’s separate Kent County action. Third, the misnomer doctrine does not apply because Home-Owners and Auto-Owners are separate corporate entities, not two names for the same party. Fourth, Home-Owners’ motion for a directed verdict was procedurally proper; it relied on undisputed dates-of-service evidence that allowed the court to determine whether the one-year-back rule applied as a matter of law.
The practical result: AdvisaCare may recover for attendant care provided to Sandra (who had timely assigned her claim before suit was filed) but not for Carol (whose assignment was executed one day after the complaint was filed). Auto-Owners must be reinstated as a defendant, and judgment runs against Auto-Owners rather than Home-Owners.
Key Takeaways
- Under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, a healthcare provider suing for PIP benefits must identify the correct insurer of highest priority. Suing a sister company does not substitute for suing the actual insurer, and the misnomer doctrine does not cure the error when the two entities are genuinely separate corporations.
- A party that makes an unqualified admission in response to a request for admissions cannot unilaterally retract it by filing supplemental responses without court authorization under MCR 2.312. Unauthorized supplemental responses leave the original admission binding.
- Case consolidation under MCR 2.505(A) does not merge the actions into a single case. The parties, pleadings, and standing requirements of each consolidated case retain their separate identities; an assignment filed in one case does not automatically supply standing in the other.
- For attendant care providers operating in Michigan’s no-fault system, the lesson is structural: verify the correct insurer before filing, obtain written assignments from each insured before the complaint is filed, and do not rely on consolidation as a workaround for standing defects.
Why It Matters
AdvisaCare v. Auto-Owners is the final chapter of complex litigation that traveled to the Michigan Supreme Court and back twice. For the plaintiff’s no-fault bar—including the medical-provider community that regularly pursues PIP claims—the case is a cautionary tale about insurer identification and assignment timing. Michigan’s no-fault ecosystem features multiple related insurers under common ownership umbrellas (like Auto-Owners Insurance Group), and misidentifying the correct priority insurer at the outset can doom recovery even after a favorable jury verdict.
The case also clarifies the limits of case consolidation as a litigation strategy. Defense counsel should understand that consolidation does not merge standing or assignment requirements: a plaintiff who lacks an assignment in its own case cannot cure that deficiency by pointing to an assignment in a co-plaintiff’s consolidated action. For insurers defending no-fault provider suits, the opinion is a reminder that improperly admitting liability in RFAs can create binding admissions that significantly complicate defense—supplemental retraction requires court approval to be effective.