NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0139n.06 No. 09-1551 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AN OTHE R ST EP F OR WA RD and T HE HEA LIN GP LA CE OF DE TR OIT , IN CO RP OR

AT ED , Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , v. STA TE F ARM M UT UA L A UT OM OBI LE INSURANCE COMP ANY , Defendant-

Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , C OLE, and G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Another Step Forw ard and the Hea ling Place of De troit, I nc. (c ollectively , “the Providers ”) sue d Def endant- Appellee State Fa rm Mutual Automobile I nsuranc e Co. (“State F arm” ) t o collect pay ment for he alth car e ser

vices they provided to one of State F arm’s insur eds, Mi chae l Morg an, who suff ere d a bra in injury

resulting from an automobile acc ident. The Provider s sought r eimbursement unde r both a bre ach- of-c ontrac t theory and under Michig an’s no- fault ac t. See M i c h
. C o mp . L aw s . § § 5 0 0
. 3 1 0 1

- 5 0 0
. 3 1 7 9
. T h e y a l so broug ht claims of business defa mation a nd tortious inter fer ence with a contra ctual re lationship. The district c ourt

g ra nte d St a te F arm

su mma ry jud g me nt o n a ll c la ims , h old ingtha t th e Pr ov ide rs ’ statut or y c a us e of a c tio n und e r the no -f

a ult a c t wa s b arr e d b y

c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l and

that th e ir c la imsNo. 09-1551

Another Step Forward v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co.

- 2 - of br e a c h o f co ntr a c t, bus ine ss de fa ma tio n, and tor

tio us int e rf

e re nc e wi th a c on tr a c tua l r e la tio ns hip fa ile d a s a

ma tte r o f l aw. Th e Pr ov ide rs a pp e a l th e g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt. We r e v ie w d e n o v o a

d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s g r an t o f

s u mm ar y ju d g me n t. Barrett v. W hirlpool Corp. , 556 F.3d 502, 511 ( 6th Cir. 2009 ). S u m m ar y judgme nt is proper “ if the plea dings, the discovery and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to a ny ma te ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ant is en tit le d to judg me nt as a ma tte r of law. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 56 (c ). Whe n c on sid e ri nga mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, thi s Co ur

t c on str ue s f a c tua l e vid e nc e in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty and make s all rea sonable infe renc es in that party ’s favor
. Ba rre tt , 5 5 6 F
. 3 d a t 51 1; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The centr al issue in consideringa motion for summary judgme nt is “ whether the e vid e nc e pr e se nts a

su ff ic ien t disa g re e me nt t o r e qu ir e su bmi ssi on to a jur y or wh e the r i t is so one-sided that one par

ty must prevail as a

matter of la

w.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 242, 251-52 (1986) . “The availability of summary judgme nt in diversity actions is g overne d by

the fede ral standard, .
. . rathe r than by state law.” Biegas v. Quic kway Carriers, Inc. , 573 F.3d 365, 374 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Gafford v. Gen. Ele c. Co. , 9 97 F .2 d 1 50 , 1 65 -6 6 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 3) ). I n d ive rs ity
case s, we re view de novo a district court’s de termination of state la w. Andrews v. C o lumbia Gas Transmissi on Corp. , 544 F.3d 618, 624 ( 6th Cir. 2008). The district cour

t analy zed the Providers’ br eac h of contra ct, business defam ation, and tortious interfer ence claims on the merits and f ound that State Fa

rm was e ntitled t o summary judgme nt on all thr ee. The Provider s appea led the g rant of summar y judgme nt on these cla ims, but have f ailed to p re s en t any

substantive argument in support of their cla im that the district court’sNo. 09-1551

Another Step Forward v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co.

- 3 - ru lin g wa s in er

ro r. Af te r ca re fu lly re vie wi ng the re c or d, the a pp lic a ble law, and the pa

rt ie s’ br ie fs , we c on c lud e tha

t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s c or re c t in its de te rm ination tha

t State F arm

wa s e nti tle d to summary judgme nt on the se claims. Be cause the district court’s opinion corr ectly sets out the law g overning the issues raise d and cle arly articulates the re asons under ly ing its dec ision, a full written analy sis of these cla ims by this Court would serve no useful purpose. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the g rant of summar

y judgme nt on these claims for the rea sons stated in the district court’ s opinion and order
. We a lso a ffirm the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt on the Providers’ s t atut ory
c la im und e r Mic hig an’ s no- fa ult a c t on the me ri ts w ith ou t r e a c hin g the iss ue of c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l. See Abercrom bie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v . Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. , 280 F.3d 619, 629 (6th Cir. 2002) (“ [W]e ma

y a ff ir m [a g ra nt o f s umm ary jud g me nt] on any g ro un ds su pp or te d by the re c or d e ve n if differ ent from the r easons of the district court.” ). The Providers failed to mee t their burden to show that there was a g enuine issue of materia l f act a s to whether the service s they provided to Morg an
wer e lawf ully rende red a

nd compensa

ble under the no-fa ult act. There fore , State Fa rm was e ntitled to s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th is c la im. I n Nasser v. Auto Club Insurance Association , 457 N.W.2d 637 (Mich. 1990), the Michig an Supreme Court held that a claima n t p u rs uing no- fault bene fits has the burde n of provingthat the expenses incurre d wer e both r easona ble and nece ssary under Mich. Comp. L aws § 5 00.3107. Nasser , 4 57 N. W.2 d at 64 5. “ Whe re a pla int if f i s unab le to sh ow tha t a pa rt ic ula r, re a so na ble expense has bee n incurre d for a rea sonably

nece ssary

product a nd service , there can be no finding of a br e a c h o f t

he ins ur e r’ s du ty to pa

y that e xpe ns e , a

nd thu s no fi nd ing of lia

bil ity wi th r e g a rd

toNo. 09-1551

Another Step Forward v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co.

- 4 - that expense.” Id. I n Ch e r r y v . S ta te F a rm M u tu a l A u to m o b il e I

n s urance Co. , 4 8 9 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992), the Michig an Court of Appe als held that the re quirements of Mich. Comp. L aws § 500.3107 must be rea d in c onjunction w ith Mich. Comp. L aws § 500.3157, whic h require s that treatment be “la

wfully rende r[ed].” Che rry , 489 N.W.2d at 790. Furthe r, the Che rry c ourt he ld that “only treatment lawfully

rende red, inc lud

ing be ing in c om pli an c e with lic e ns ing

re qu ire me nts , is subject to pay

ment as a no- fault bene fit.” Id. (empha sis added). The Provider s failed to demonstrate that there is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t as to whether Morg an’s t re at m ent was la wfully rende red. O nce State F arm submitted its mot ion for summary judgme nt, the Providers we re r equire d to “set forth specific fac ts showing that ther e [was] a g enuine issue for tria l.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248 (interna l quotation marks omitted). The Provider s failed t o m ee t t h i s burden be cause they did not produce a dequate evidenc e deta iling their tre atment of Morg an. Althoug h the Providers produc ed seve ral aff idavits opining that the Provider s were not require d to have a d ult foster-c are or psy chiatric -fa cility licenses, these aff

idavits did not i nclude de ta ils a bo ut M or g a

n’ s tr e a tme nt. Mo st o f t he a ffi ant s d id n ot i nd ic a te any fa mil iari ty wi th Morg an’s treatment. I ndeed, some of the aff idavits de al with othe r lawsuits c oncer ni n g d i ff er ent patients. Wit hout the details of Morg an’s tre atment, the af fiants’ c onclusory

opinions on whether licensure was re quired for Morg an’s treatment are of little rele vance . The Provider s did produce two
a ff ida vit s f ro m in div idu a ls inv olv e d in Mo rg an’ s tr e a tme nt, bu t th e se a ff ida vit s si mil arl y

fa ile d to provide a ny detail about the se rvice s Morg an re ceive d. Fur ther, the most salient evide nce pr oduced by the Providers c ontradicts their entire argument. The evidence about M org an’s medical condition indicates that he require d attendant c areNo. 09-1551

Another Step Forward v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co.

- 5 - twenty -four

hours per

day to help him carr

y out the basic a ctivities of daily l i fe. This ty

pe of treatment falls square ly

into the statutory

definition of foster car e. Mich. Comp. L aws § 400.704(6)
. The Provider s were not licensed a s an adult foster -ca re f acility
. R evea lingly , the most releva nt
a ff ida vit pr od uc e d b y the Pr ov ide rs re pe a te dly state d th a t f

a cilit ie s tr e a tin g br a in- inj ur e d a du lts requiringtwenty -four -hour c are wer e re quired to have an adult foster -ca re lice nse. I n arguing that collatera l estoppel does not apply , t h e P roviders r ely on Allstate Insurance Co. v. Franke l , 259 F.R.D. 274 (E.D. Mich. 2009), and its stateme nt that “[c]ases such as these are entirely fac t specific.” Id. at 280. I ndeed, it wa s the Providers’ bur den to pre sent specif ic evidenc e
a bo ut t he ir tr e a tme nt o f M or g an, bo th t o s ho w that “ e a c h p art ic ula r e xpe ns e [wa s] bo th r e a so na ble and nec essar

y ,” Nasser , 457 N.W.2d at 645, and to de monstrate that eac h element of his treatment either f ell within the scope of the licensure they did have or

did not re q u i re a s p ecif ic license
. Wit hout presenting evidenc e of Mor g an’s tre atment, it was impossible for the Provider s to show that the treatment was lawf

ully rende red. W hen a defe ndant has moved for summar y judgme nt, “[t] he
me re e x is ten ce of a

sc int ill a of e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of the pla int if

f’ s p os iti on

wi ll b e ins uf

fi c ie nt; there must be evidenc e on which the jury could re asonably

find for the plaintiff.” A n derson , 477 U.S. at 252. The Provider s failed to pre sent evidenc e that showe d that the service s they provided to Morg an we re r easona

ble, nec essar

y , and lawf

ully rende red unde r Mich. C omp. L aws §§ 500.3107
and 50 0. 31 57 . T he re fo re , St a te F arm wa s e nti tle d to su mma

ry jud g me nt. Ba sed on the foreg oing rea sons, we AF F IRM the district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt to S ta te F arm

on a ll c la ims
.No. 09-1551

Another Step Forward v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co.

- 6 -