Miracle et al v. JPVS Import Export, Inc. et al
Filing
38
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Citizens Insurance Company of Midwest's motion to intervene in this diversity action. re 30 Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 11/5/2019. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Lori Miracle, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-788
Plaintiffs,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JPVS Import Export, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest seeks to intervene in this diversity action
pursuant to Rule 24. (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiffs Lori Miracle, Marc Miracle, and John Brown have
filed a brief in opposition to Citizens’ motion, (Doc. No. 33), as have Defendants JPVS Import
Export, Inc., and Danijel Aramovic. (Doc. No. 34). Citizens filed a brief in reply. (Doc. No. 37).
For the reasons stated below, I grant Citizens’ motion to intervene.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Lori Miracle and John Brown were injured when the vehicle in which they were
riding was hit by a semi-tractor trailer operated by Aramovic. At the time of the accident, Aramovic
was an employee of JPVS. Citizens paid no-fault insurance benefits to Brown and Lori pursuant to
Section 500.3101, et seq., of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (Doc. No. 30 at 2-3). Citizens now seeks
to intervene in this litigation in order to assert its statutory right of subrogation. (Doc. No. 30 at 3
(citing M.C.L. § 500.3116)).
III.
STANDARD
Rule 24(a) permits a party to intervene in an action if the party timely “claims an interest
relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that
disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its
interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see
Americans United for Separation of Church & State v. City of Grand Rapids, 922 F.2d 303, 305 (6th Cir.
1990).
IV.
ANALYSIS
Defendants contend Citizens’ motion should be denied because it is untimely. (Doc. No. 34
at 4-6). A district court has discretion to determine whether an intervenor’s motions is timely. Stotts
v. Memphis Fire Dep't, 679 F.2d 579, 582 (6th Cir. 1982). Among the factors a court may consider are
(1) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (2) the length of time preceding the
application for intervention during which the proposed intervenor knew or
reasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (3) the prejudice to the
original parties due to the proposed intervenor's failure after he knew of or
reasonably should have known of his interest in the case to apply promptly for
intervention; (4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor
of intervention; and (5) the point to which the suit has progressed.
Id.
As Defendants note, Citizens filed its motion to intervene nearly a year and a half after
Plaintiffs filed their complaint. Citizens indicates, however, it filed the motion because “[o]nly
recently has [Plaintiffs’] counsel advised that Plaintiffs would not adequately represent Citizens’
subrogation interest.” (Doc. No. 30 at 3).
Rule 24 places no deadline on timeliness, and Citizens’ representations that it “does not
anticipate requiring any additional discovery beyond discovery that has occurred in this matter
2
relative to Plaintiffs’ claims and proofs for damages, presumably already presented to Defendants”
minimizes any prejudice to the parties which potentially might have arisen from the temporal delay
between filing of the complaint and the filing of Citizens’ motion.1 (Doc. No. 37 at 2). I conclude,
under the circumstances, that Citizens filed its motion in a timely manner.
Next, both Plaintiffs and Defendants contend there is no basis for Citizens’ motion to
intervene because Plaintiffs seek only noneconomic damages and Michigan law does not permit
Citizens to obtain reimbursement out of Plaintiffs’ recovery of noneconomic damages. (Doc. No.
33 at 5-6); (Doc. No. 34 at 9-10). In effect, these arguments demonstrate why Citizens is entitled to
intervene as of right.
Michigan law permits an insurer to obtain reimbursement for benefits it paid to its insured if
the insured recovers damages on tort claims arising from an accident outside of Michigan. M.C.L. §
500.3116(2). The insurer may be reimbursed only out of the damages awarded for injuries otherwise
covered by “personal protection insurance benefits.” Id. Insurers may not obtain reimbursement
out of any portion of the insured’s recovery which is for “noneconomic loss.” M.C.L. §
500.3116(4).
Plaintiffs acknowledge they initially alleged they incurred medical bills and suffered wage loss
due to the accident. (Doc. No. 33 at 5). Plaintiffs seek to abandon those allegations, having agreed
with Defendants that they only seek to recover noneconomic damages, and even preemptively argue
they will seek leave to amend their complaint in order to remove any reference to medical losses or
other economic damages. (Id. at 6). Plaintiffs do not claim there is no basis on which they could
obtain economic damages. They simply no longer desire to pursue those damages.
An intervenor’s delay in filing a motion to intervene, while not sufficient to defeat its motion, may
have an impact on any subsequent requests for discovery. See, e.g., Maricco v. Meco Corp., 316 F. Supp.
2d 524, 527 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
1
3
Rule 24 anticipates precisely this scenario. A party may intervene as of right “unless existing
parties adequately represent that [party’s] interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). More to the point,
where an insured might, “perhaps for strategic reasons, seek to downplay or ignore” the insured’s
claim for reimbursement of medical expenses paid by an insurer or, “for whatever reason, fail to
present evidence encompassing all of the medical expenses paid by their insurer,” the insurer is
entitled to intervene in order to protect its statutory subrogation interest. Maricco v. Meco Corp., 316
F. Supp. 2d 524, 527 (E.D. Mich. 2004); see also Harris v. Gen. Coach Works, 37 F.R.D. 343 (E.D.
Mich. 1964) (holding a worker’s compensation insurer seeking to assert a right of subrogation under
Michigan law could intervene in litigation between an employee and the employer-insured).
Finally, Defendants claim Citizens failed to bring its subrogation claim within the one-year
timeline described in M.C.L. § 500.3145. (Doc. No. 34 at 8-9). This argument is not persuasive, as
an insurer must commence an action to enforce its rights of recovery or indemnity under § 500.3116
within one year of the date on which the insured receives payment of damages arising from the
insured’s tort claim, not the date on which the insured was injured or on which the insured filed suit.
M.C.L. § 500.3146.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Citizens’ motion to intervene, (Doc. No. 30), is granted.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?