SASIRAT WYCKOFF V AUTO CLUB INS ASSN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SASIRAT WYCKOFF, as Personal Representative
of the Estate of BRUCE WYCKOFF, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
March 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 218435
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 89-001827-CK
AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this insurance coverage case, defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s grant of
summary disposition in favor of plaintiff. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
disposition and, instead, should have granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition
because plaintiff’s health care policy’s coordination of benefits clause was ambiguous.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in assessing damages without giving defendant the
opportunity to review the medical bills.
We decline to address these issues because defendant failed to present them to the Court
in an appropriate manner. Other than providing citations for the standard of review and to
explain that the trial court cited a case in support of its decision, defendant does not cite to a
single case in support of its argument. Rather, defendant merely offers its “positions.” The
Michigan Supreme Court has explained:
[A] mere statement without authority is insufficient to bring an issue
before this Court. It is not sufficient for a party “simply to announce a position or
assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the
basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then
search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” [Wilson v Taylor, 457
Mich 232, 243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998), quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich
182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959); see also Speaker-Hines & Thomas, Inc v Dep’t of
Treasury, 207 Mich App 84, 90-91; 523 NW2d 826 (1994); MCR 7.212(C)(7).]
-1-
In any event, the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff
because the coordination of benefits clause in the decedent’s ERISA health care benefits is
unambiguous and controlling, and thus defendant is the primary insurer of medical benefits.
Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Frederick & Herrud, Inc (After Remand), 443 Mich 358, 387; 505 NW2d
820 (1993). Further, defendant made no response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), see Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109,
120-121; 597 NW2d 817 (1999), made no argument to the trial court that the amount of damages
should be determined separately from liability, and consented to the entry of an amount of
damages without moving for the opportunity to review the medical bills or moving specifically
for a trial on damages. Contrary to defendant’s argument, its vague reference to its affirmative
defenses, presumably meaning those stating that defendant did not timely receive the “reasonable
proof of the fact and of the amount of loss sustained”, is insufficient to preserve this issue for
appellate review. Fast Air, Inc v Knight, 235 Mich App 541, 549; 599 NW2d 489 (1999). On
the basis of defendant’s utter failure to sufficiently brief its second issue coupled with
defendant’s failure to properly preserve that issue, we decline to address the second issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
