|
No. 132792
| Amyruth L. Cooper, by her Next Friend, Sharon L. |
|
James A. Iafrate |
| Strozewski, and Loralee A. Cooper, by her Next |
|
|
| Friend, Sharon L. Strozewski, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Washtenaw - Shelton, D.) |
|
|
| Auto Club Insurance Association, |
|
James G. Gross |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Association for Justice's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
In 1987, sisters Amyruth and Loralee Cooper sustained severe brain injuries in an automobile accident. Both have required 24-hour attendant care ever since. Auto Club Insurance Association is the Coopers’ no-fault automobile insurer. The Coopers sued Auto Club in 2003, alleging that the insurer underpaid their mother, Sharon Strozewski, for the in-home attendant care that she provided to her daughters over the years. In 2004, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that Auto Club fraudulently induced Strozewski to accept an unreasonably low compensation rate for her in-home attendant care services. During the course of the litigation, Auto Club filed three motions for partial summary disposition, all of which the trial court denied. In 2005, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment that fixed the amount of the plaintiffs’ damages, but allowed Auto Club to file an appeal of right from the trial court’s earlier adverse decisions. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in part, finding that, under the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1), the plaintiffs may not recover no-fault personal protection insurance benefits relating to any losses that were incurred more than one year before the plaintiffs filed their complaint. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that Auto Club was entitled to summary disposition on the plaintiffs’ fraud count because that count is nothing more than a no-fault claim couched in fraud terms. The plaintiffs appeal.
Top of Page
|
