DIONTE MOORE V AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DIONTE MOORE, UNPUBLISHED October 27, 2016 Plaintiff/Counter DefendantAppellee, and OMEGA PT, L.L.C., Intervening Plaintiff/Counter Defendant-Appellee, and FIRST NATIONAL REHABILITATION and GREAT LAKES TRANSPORTATION, Intervening Plaintiff. v No. 327872 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 14-000264-NF AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter PlaintiffAppellant. AAA MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Counter DefendantAppellee, v No. 327946 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 14-007261-CZ AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter PlaintiffAppellant. Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and GLEICHER and O’BRIEN, JJ. -1- O’BRIEN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion with respect to Omega PT, L.L.C. In this case, the trial court granted Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), which was premised entirely on a provision of Dionte Moore’s insurance agreement that prohibited the payment of insurance benefits in the event that a claim was fraudulent. Omega has not appealed that decision. Yet, the majority concludes that a question of fact remains with respect to whether Omega’s claim was fraudulent, essentially granting relief on a cross-appeal that was never filed.1 Had Omega wished to challenge the trial court’s order granting summary disposition, it certainly could have, and my analysis may well have been different. But, it did not. Instead, Auto-Owners appealed the trial court’s decision not to award sanctions despite the fact that, as the majority explains, sanctions are mandatory when a claim is frivolous. Because the trial court found, as a matter of law, that Moore’s, Omega’s, and AAA Medical Transportation’s claims were fraudulent, sanctions are mandatory pursuant to MCR 2.625(A)(2) and MCL 600.2591. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand with respect to Omega as well. /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 1 Alternatively, it may be that the majority is treating the fraud and frivolousness inquiries as entirely separate inquiries. While I agree that, ideally, they should be determined separately, I am not willing to conclude that a claim that was determined to be fraudulent as a matter of law could somehow not be frivolous. -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.
