DAVID SIEGEL V BLUE CROSS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID SIEGEL and JUDY SIEGEL,
UNPUBLISHED
October 11. 1996
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
No. 175425
LC No. 93-328341-CZ
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
MICHIGAN, a Michigan Insurance Corporation;
SUSAN CROWLEY and CINDY DION, jointly
and severally,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Taylor, P.J., and Murphy and E. J. Grant,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendants appeal, by leave granted, the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary
disposition. We remand.
Plaintiff, David Siegel,1 began working for defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
(BCBSM) in 1974. On March 8, 1993, BCBSM sent all its non-union employees, including plaintiff, a
letter announcing that it was implementing an important change in its employment policies, to wit, all
termination-related disputes would be subject to mandatory arbitration before the American Arbitration
Association. The letter indicated that the actual policy was in the process of being printed and would be
available in the regional human resources office the week of March 28, 1993, and that it would be
conducting briefings on the procedure in the coming months. On March 25, 1993, plaintiff was
terminated. On October 5, 1993, plaintiff and his wife filed a lawsuit in circuit court. Plaintiff alleged
(1) discrimination based upon age, sex and religion in violation of the civil rights act, (2) tortious
interference with contract, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) violation of public policy,
and (5) exemplary damages. The lawsuit did not allege that plaintiff had been terminated in violation of
a promise for just-cause employment.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were exclusively
subject to arbitration rather than litigation pursuant to the arbitration policy. The trial court denied
defendants’ motion. This Court granted defendants’ application for leave to appeal to review the
propriety of the court’s denial of defendants’ motion.
The Michigan Supreme Court recently decided Heurtebise v Reliable Business Computers,
452 Mich 405; ___ NW2d ___ (1996) reh den 9/16/96, which is relevant to the issue before this
Court. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion with
emphasis on the employee handbook language, we find that a remand for reconsideration in light of
Heurtebise is appropriate. The parties shall be afforded the opportunity to file new briefs and any
employee handbook or similar documents to address Heurtebise’s impact on this case. Jennings v
Southwood, 446 Mich 125, 145-146; 521 NW2d 230 (1994). We further direct the parties to brief,
and the court to consider the import, if any, of the fact that it appears that, prior to termination, plaintiff
did not have a copy of the actual arbitration policy nor was one available in one of BCBSM’s human
resource departments.
Remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Edward J. Grant
1
The lower court record indicates that David Siegel is now deceased.
-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.
