Background
Khaleel Saqd was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 27, 2019, when his brakes failed, causing a collision with multiple vehicles. At the time of the accident, Saqd was insured under a no-fault policy issued by Esurance. Saqd subsequently filed suit against Esurance seeking unpaid no-fault benefits for medical expenses, replacement services, and wage loss. The case proceeded to trial in November 2023.
A jury found that Saqd was entitled to $5,600 in work loss benefits and $672 in interest, but determined that he had not incurred allowable expenses or replacement service expenses. Saqd appealed, raising numerous claims of error, including challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury voir dire procedures, and the trial court’s rejection of bills from ZMC Pharmacy that Saqd sought to introduce after executing a mutual revocation of assignment one week before trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and trial court judgment in their entirety. The court systematically rejected each of Saqd’s arguments, finding that most were either waived through failure to preserve objections at trial or lacked adequate legal support. On the central issue—whether Saqd could unilaterally revoke his assignment to ZMC Pharmacy one week before trial and retroactively present those bills to the jury—the court applied recent Michigan Supreme Court precedent to hold that such revocation was insufficient without court approval.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. (2025), the court explained that although mutual rescission of an assignment may be recognized as an equitable remedy, its effect on ongoing litigation involving third parties requires judicial approval. The court noted that even if an assignor and assignee agree to rescind an assignment, such rescission “could not be given legal effect as to a third party without a ruling from a court.” The trial court acted within its discretion in denying Saqd’s attempt to add the ZMC claims at the last minute, given that the case had been pending nearly two years, discovery had closed, and the revocation was presented only one week before trial.
Key Takeaways
- Unilateral revocation of an assignment in ongoing litigation is insufficient to restore an assignor’s status as the real party in interest; court approval and proper litigation steps are required under C-Spine Orthopedics precedent.
- Assignment rescission presented on the eve of trial—one week before a scheduled trial date—may be properly denied as untimely, especially when the case has been pending nearly two years and discovery is closed.
- Parties waive appellate review of evidentiary and procedural objections by failing to preserve them at trial through timely, specific objections or by affirmatively approving admission of evidence.
- Appellants bear the burden of creating an adequate record for appellate review; claims not documented in the trial record cannot be considered on appeal, even if the appellant asserts they were made off-the-record.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent C-Spine Orthopedics holding to a practical appellate scenario. The case clarifies that practitioners cannot use mutual revocation of assignments as a last-minute tactical maneuver to resurrect claims that were previously assigned away. Any attempt to rescind an assignment during active litigation requires not just agreement between the original parties, but also court approval and proper procedural steps—such as amending pleadings, seeking intervention, or requesting the equitable remedy of rescission. The timing of such requests will likely be a material factor in whether courts approve them.
The decision also reinforces longstanding Michigan appellate procedural rules requiring parties to preserve objections at trial. Saqd lost on multiple grounds because his counsel either failed to object, affirmatively stated there was no objection, or simply did not create a record supporting his appellate claims. For practitioners, the case underscores the critical importance of rigorous trial court preservation of issues, contemporaneous objections to evidence, and prompt notification to opposing counsel and the court of any discovery deficiencies.