If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE, PC,

and VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER,

Plaintiffs,

and

JESSE GARRETT,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

MEDCARE INC., doing business as SPINAL 

RECOVERY CENTER,

Intervening Plaintiff,

UNPUBLISHED

December 17, 2019

v No. 344955

Wayne County Circuit Court

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN and 

UNNAMED ASSIGNEE OF THE MACP,

LC No. 16-014894-NF

Defendants-Appellees.

MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE, PC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER,

Plaintiff,
-2-

and

JESSE GARRETT, and MEDCARE, INC., doing 

business as SPINAL RECOVERY CENTER,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

v No. 345010

Wayne County Circuit Court

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN and 

UNNAMED ASSIGNEE OF THE MACP,

LC No. 16-014894-NF

Defendants-Appellees.

MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE, PC,

Plaintiff,

and

VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

JESSE GARRETT, and MEDCARE, INC., doing 

business as SPINAL RECOVERY CENTER,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

v No. 345012

Wayne County Circuit Court

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN and 

UNNAMED ASSIGNEE OF THE MACP,

LC No. 16-014894-NF

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and BORRELLO and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
-3-

In this no-fault case, plaintiffs Michigan Head & Spine Institute, PC (MHSI), and VHS of 

Michigan, Inc., doing business as Detroit Medical Center (DMC), as well as intervening plaintiff 

Jesse Garrett, appeal as of right and challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against 

defendants Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP), which is maintained by the Michigan 

Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF), and an unnamed insurer to whom it was

anticipated MAIPF would assign Garrett’s claim.1 MHSI, DMC, and Garrett also challenge the 

trial court’s refusal to allow them an opportunity to amend their complaints. For the reasons set 

forth in this opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

MHSI and DMC initiated this action in a jointly filed one-count complaint alleging that 

they were entitled under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., to recover for medical services 

and accommodations provided to Garrett to treat injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle collision 

and that MAIPF was required to “assign a carrier to provide No-Fault benefits to a claimant if no 

personal protection insurance applicable to the injury is available” but “breached its statutory 

obligation to assign an insurer carrier to process claims arising out of the September 6, 2016 

motor vehicle accident, as provided by MCL 500.3174.” MHSI and DMC also named the yet-tobe-assigned insurer as a defendant. Garrett successfully moved to intervene and, in his 

intervening complaint, alleged in relevant part that MAIPF “has failed to assign Intervening 

Plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits to an insurer, violating its duties under MCL 500.3171, 

MCL 500.3172, MCL 500.3173, MCL 500.3174, and MCL 500.3175.” Garrett likewise alleged 

that MAIPF was “liable to Intervening Plaintiff for the claimed benefits should [it] continue to 

violate its statutory duty to assign Intervening Plaintiff’s claim to an insurer.” Like MHSI and 

DMC, Garrett also named the yet-to-be-assigned insurer as a defendant. MAIPF answered the 

plaintiff’s complaint, but did not timely answer Garrett’s intervening complaint.

As the case progressed, MHSI and DMC moved to compel the assignment of an insurer, 

but the trial court denied the motion without prejudice.

MHSI and DMC subsequently filed an “emergency” motion for leave to amend their 

complaint, seeking to allege that they possessed standing by assignment in light of Covenant 

Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 500 Mich 191; 895 NW2d 490 (2017). In 

Covenant, our Supreme Court held that the no-fault act did not provide healthcare providers with 

a statutory direct cause of action against no-fault insurers to recover personal protection 

insurance (PIP) benefits. Id. at 196. The Covenant Court also stated, however, that its holding 

was “not intended to alter an insured’s ability to assign his or her right to past or presently due 

 1 MAIPF maintains the MACP. See MCL 500.3171(2) (“The Michigan automobile insurance 

placement facility shall adopt and maintain an assigned claims plan . . . .”). Although all 

plaintiffs named MACP as the defendant in this matter, MAIPF asserts that it, not the MACP, is 

the “entity with the capacity to be sued and, for all intents and purposes, should be considered 

the actual Defendant in this case.” Accordingly, we will refer to MAIPF as the relevant 

defendant and to the MACP to the extent it is necessary to address the plan itself.
-4-

benefits to a healthcare provider.” Id. at 217 n 40. MAIPF opposed the motion for leave to 

amend, contending that the “emergency” motion was prejudicial because of “undue delay” and

that the amendment would be “futile.” With respect to delay, MAIPF argued that the parties had 

been litigating the case for approximately one year by the time the motion to amend was filed on 

December 1, 2017, and that the assignments at issue were executed in September 2016, February 

2017, and June 2017—15 months, 10 months, and 6 months, respectively, before the 

“emergency” motion was filed. With respect to futility, MAIPF argued that amending the 

complaint would be futile because it was entitled to have its pending motion for summary 

disposition, which was premised on the ground that Garrett and his mother had made material 

misrepresentations of fact related to the case, granted in its favor. The trial court denied the 

emergency motion for leave to amend, without prejudice, finding that the motion was “too late, 

prejudicial and futile.”2 The court offered no further explanation of this ruling. At the same 

hearing, the trial court stated that it would take the pending motion for summary disposition 

under advisement.3

MAIPF subsequently filed additional motions for summary disposition, including one 

under MCR 2.116(C)(8) that is relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. In this (C)(8) motion, 

MAIPF first argued that MHSI’s and DMC’s claims failed to state a claim because the holding in 

Covenant prohibited healthcare providers from proceeding with a direct action against a no-fault 

insurer. MAIPF next argued that MHSI and DMC had also failed to state a claim for PIP

benefits against it because (1) MAIPF was only created by statute to adopt and maintain an 

assigned claims plan, (2) MAIPF was not an insurer and its function was limited to reviewing 

and assigning eligible claims to an insurer that would be responsible for providing benefits 

required under the no-fault act, and (3) MAIPF therefore could not be liable as a matter of law 

for paying insurance benefits. Finally, MAIPF argued that its second argument (that it could not 

be liable for paying PIP benefits) applied with equal force to Garrett, justifying dismissal of his 

claim as well.

While the above (C)(8) motion was pending, Garrett requested, and the court clerk 

entered, a default against MAIPF on Garrett’s intervening complaint based on MAIPF’s failure 

to file an answer. The default was entered on March 26, 2018. MAIPF then filed a responsive 

pleading the next day. Three days later, the parties stipulated to set aside the default and the 

court entered an order to that effect. Once the default was set aside, MAIPF refiled its answer 

and affirmative defenses on April 9, 2018.

Meanwhile, MHSI and DMC opposed MAIPF’s (C)(8) motion, arguing first that their 

claims could proceed based on a valid assignments of benefits received from Garrett and that 

leave to amend their complaint should be granted to reflect that their standing was based on an 

assignment. MHSI and DMC, citing MCR 2.116(I)(5), argued that granting leave to amend was 

 2 MHSI and DMC filed an application for leave to appeal that decision in this Court, which was 

denied. See Mich Head & Spine Institute PC v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, unpublished order 

of the Court of Appeals, entered April 6, 2018 (Docket No. 342537).

3 This summary disposition motion is not at issue in this appeal and will not be further discussed.
-5-

warranted. MHSI and DMC argued that MAIPF would not be prejudiced because the 

amendment would only clarify their standing and would not otherwise change the nature of the 

underlying claims at issue in the lawsuit. Next, with respect to MAIPF’s claim that it could not 

be liable for paying insurance benefits as a matter of law, MHSI and DMC argued that MCL 

500.3172 specifically provides for claimants to obtain PIP benefits through the assigned claims 

plan if no personal protection insurance is applicable to the injury. MHSI and DMC further 

argued that the MACP Plan of Operations provided that MAIPF was ultimately responsible for 

indemnifying all losses and liabilities related to benefits paid under MACP and that the MAIPF 

could, as it did in this case, elect to defend, pay, or otherwise dispose of any claim at its own cost 

instead of assigning the claim. MHSI and DMC also argued that because MAIPF had refused to 

assign an insurer, there was no other defendant against which to timely file an action.

Garrett’s arguments were largely the same with respect to opposing MAIPF’s argument 

that it could not be held liable for PIP benefits as a matter of law. Garrett further argued that his 

complaint alleged that MAIPF had breached its statutory duty to assign his claim. Finally, 

Garrett argued that, in the alternative, he should be granted leave to amend his complaint to add a 

claim requiring MAIPF to assign an insurer.

In reply, MAIPF asserted that MHSI and DMC’s arguments with respect to an

assignment-based claim were nothing more than an attempt to undermine the trial court’s earlier 

decision to deny them an opportunity to amend their pleading. MAIPF argued that granting 

leave to amend would be prejudicial to it solely because MHSI and DMC could have moved 

earlier than they did for leave to amend based on the assignments that they had long possessed. 

MAIPF also argued that it could not be held liable for monetary damages because it only had an 

obligation to reimburse servicing insurance carriers, not claimants, and had nonetheless already 

determined that Garrett was “obviously ineligible” for PIP benefits. Additionally, MAIPF 

admitted in its reply brief that even if summary disposition were granted on the ground that it 

could not be monetarily liable for paying benefits, Garrett would still be permitted to proceed in 

the action with attempting to require MAIPF to assign his claim because Garrett had sought this 

relief in his complaint. Specifically, MAIPF stated, “If the Court grants this Motion as 

previously done in prior cases, Plaintiff would still have a cause of action for assignment as pled 

in the Complaint and permitted by the statute.”

The trial court granted summary disposition to MAIPF under MCR 2.116(C)(8). With 

respect to the Covenant issue, counsel for MHSI and DMC argued at the hearing that they had 

waited to move to amend because they “wanted an insurance company in the case so that we 

could do one amendment as to both . . . an insurance company and allege the assignment.” 

Counsel further argued that the previous denial of the motion for leave to amend had been 

without prejudice. Additionally, counsel argued that MAIPF inexcusably delayed in filing a 

(C)(8) motion based on Covenant, that there was no actual prejudice to MAIPF if the court 

permitted the amendment, and delay alone was insufficient to justify denying leave to amend in 

the absence of such prejudice. The trial court granted MAIPF’s motion for summary disposition

under (C)(8) with respect to MHSI and DMC pursuant to Covenant. The trial court confirmed 

that it had already denied leave for MHSI and DMC to amend their complaint to reflect an 

assignment-based theory of standing because it was “late.” The trial court also explained that its 

summary disposition ruling was based on the court being “consistent with what it did.” 
-6-

Additionally, the trial court again denied the request of MHSI and DMC to amend their 

complaint to account for the assignments.

With respect to MAIPF’s argument that it could not be liable for paying PIP benefits 

because it was not an insurer, the trial court concluded that MAIPF was entitled to summary 

disposition under (C)(8) as to MHSI, DMC, and Garrett on this basis. The trial court ruled that 

“all claims for monetary damages” would be dismissed. The trial court appeared to impliedly 

rule that the only type of action that could legitimately be brought against MAIPF was one for 

declaratory relief requiring MAIPF to assign the claim to an insurer. The trial court accordingly 

dismissed the claims of MHSI, DMC, and Garrett because they did not have a specific count in 

their respective complaints for declaratory relief and the court viewed the complaints as seeking 

only monetary damages. The trial court further ruled that it “isn’t going to permit an amendment 

at this late in the game.”

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, MHSI, DMC, and Garrett challenge the trial court’s order granting summary 

disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). As described above, the trial court’s ruling was based on 

two grounds, one of which applied to all three plaintiff-appellants and one of which only applied 

to MHSI and DMC. Plaintiff-appellants also challenge the trial court’s related rulings 

prohibiting them from amending their complaints. 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“This Court reviews de novo a circuit court’s summary disposition ruling.” Dalley v 

Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 304; 788 NW2d 679 (2010).

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim 

based on the factual allegations in the complaint. When considering such a 

motion, a trial court must accept all factual allegations as true, deciding the 

motion on the pleadings alone. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be 

granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development 

could possibly justify recovery. [El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 

152, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket No. 157846); slip op at 6 (citations 

omitted).]

This Court also reviews the interpretation of the no-fault act’s statutory provisions de 

novo. Agnone v Home-Owners Ins Co, 310 Mich App 522, 526; 871 NW2d 732 (2015). “The 

primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Allstate 

Ins Co v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 321 Mich App 543, 551; 909 NW2d 495 (2017) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute 

must be enforced as written and no further judicial construction is permitted.” Id. (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Finally, we review a trial court’s decision denying leave to amend pleadings for an abuse 

of discretion. Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 207; 

920 NW2d 148 (2018).
-7-

B. DISCUSSION

The first ground on which the trial court granted summary disposition involved the trial 

court’s conclusions that MAIPF could not be held liable for directly paying PIP benefits and, 

relatedly, that the only form of action that could be brought against MAIPF was one for 

declaratory relief requiring it to assign the claim to an insurer. 

The no-fault act’s intended purpose “is to ensure the compensation of persons injured in 

automobile accidents.” Allstate Ins Co, 321 Mich App at 552 (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). As part of this statutory scheme, a “person entitled to claim because of accidental 

bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a 

motor vehicle in this state may claim personal protection insurance benefits through the assigned 

claims plan” even when there does not appear to be any PIP coverage applicable to the injury. 

MCL 500.3172(1), as amended by 2012 PA 204 (emphasis added);

4 see also Spectrum Health 

Hosps v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket 

No. 343563); slip op at 5. MCL 500.3174, as amended by 2012 PA 204, which was the version 

of the statute in effect when this action was commenced, instructs that “[t]he Michigan 

automobile insurance placement facility shall promptly assign the claim in accordance with the 

plan and notify the claimant of the identity and address of the insurer to which the claim is 

assigned” once MAIPF is timely notified by a person “claiming through the assigned claims 

plan.” However, MAIPF is first required to “make an initial determination of a claimant’s 

eligibility for benefits under the assigned claims plan” before assigning the claim to an insurer, 

and it “shall deny an obviously ineligible claim.” MCL 500.3173a(1), as amended by 2012 PA 

204; see also Spectrum Health, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6-7. If MAIPF denies the claim, 

the “claimant shall be notified promptly in writing of the denial and the reasons for the denial.” 

MCL 500.3173a(1), as amended by 2012 PA 204; see also Spectrum Health, ___ Mich App at 

___; slip op at 7.

Nonetheless, this Court has previously recognized that although MAIPF assigns claims to 

insurers, “the claim itself [is] nonetheless being processed through MAIPF” and the servicing 

insurers “act on behalf of the MAIPF.” Candler v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, 321 

Mich App 772, 781; 910 NW2d 666 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we 

concluded, such a “claim for no-fault benefits is a claim to MAIPF.” Id.

This conclusion is further supported by the version of MCL 500.3175(1) that was in 

effect during the course of the proceedings below, which provided in relevant part as follows:

The assignment of claims under the assigned claims plan shall be made 

according to procedures established in the assigned claims plan that assure fair 

allocation of the burden of assigned claims among insurers doing business in this 

state on a basis reasonably related to the volume of automobile liability and 

 4 The recent amendment to this statute in 2019 PA 21, which took effect on June 11, 2019, has 

not substantively changed this particular rule.
-8-

personal protection insurance they write on motor vehicles or the number of selfinsured motor vehicles. An insurer to whom claims have been assigned shall 

make prompt payment of loss in accordance with this act. An insurer is entitled to 

reimbursement by the Michigan automobile insurance placement facility for the 

payments, the established loss adjustment cost, and an amount determined by use 

of the average annual 90–day United States treasury bill yield rate . . . . [MCL 

500.3175(1), as amended by 2012 PA 204 (emphasis added).]

Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff may seek PIP benefits from MAIPF directly

where MAIPF has not assigned the claim to a servicing insurer. The trial court erred by granting 

summary disposition in MAIPF’s favor on the ground that the only type of action that could ever 

be brought against MAIPF was one for declaratory relief seeking to require MAIPF to assign an 

insurer.

Furthermore, the trial court also erred by determining that the complaints filed by MHSI, 

DMC, and Garrett did not sufficiently request that MAIPF be ordered to assign the claim to an 

insurer. The trial court erred in its focus on whether such relief had been sought in its own 

distinct count. See Wiggins v City of Burton, 291 Mich App 532, 561; 805 NW2d 517 (2011) 

(“Although it has become commonplace in this state for a plaintiff to assert a request for 

declaratory relief as a separately labeled cause of action within his or her complaint, this is 

technically improper because “declaratory relief is a remedy, not a claim.”).

MCR 2.111(B)(1) simply requires a complaint to include a “statement of the facts, 

without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the specific 

allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the 

adverse party is called on to defend.” This Court has previously explained that this subrule is 

“consistent with a notice pleading environment” and that “[t]he primary function of a pleading in 

Michigan is to give notice of the nature of the claim or defense sufficient to permit the opposite 

party to take a responsive position.” Dalley, 287 Mich App at 305 (quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

In this case, although the operative complaints did not include a specific paragraph asking 

MAIPF to assign an insurer in the “WHEREFORE” clause, “a complaint must be read as a 

whole, and it is well settled that this Court will look beyond the mere procedural labels used in 

the pleadings.” Wiggins, 291 Mich App at 561. “Courts are not bound by a party’s choice of 

labels because this would effectively elevate form over substance.” Shah, 324 Mich App at 204

(quotation marks and citation omitted). It is clear from the face of each complaint that MHSI

and DMC, as well as Garrett, alleged that MAIPF breached its statutory duty to assign an insurer 

or otherwise pay Garrett’s PIP claims. MHSI and DMC alleged that MAIPF was required by 

MCL 500.3172(1) to “assign a carrier to provide No-Fault benefits to a claimant if no personal 

protection insurance applicable to the injury is available” and “breached its statutory obligation 

to assign an insurance carrier to process claims arising out of the September 6, 2016 motor 

vehicle accident, as provided by MCL 500.3174.” Likewise, Garrett alleged that MAIPF “has 

failed to assign Intervening Plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits to an insurer, violating its 

duties under MCL 500.3171, MCL 500.3172, MCL 500.3173, MCL 500.3174, and MCL 

500.3175.” Garrett also alleged that he was entitled to recover benefits from the insurer to which 

his claim was assigned and that MAIPF was liable for these benefits if it “continue[d] to violate 
-9-

its statutory duty to assign Intervening Plaintiff’s claim to an insurer.” We conclude that the 

complaints adequately put MAIPF on notice that the claims relied on the allegation that MAIPF 

had breached its statutory duty to assign an insurer in this case and that MHSI, DMC, and Garrett 

alleged that MAIPF was required to assign the claim for benefits to an insurer.

Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(8) on such an overly technical basis that was contrary to the principles of notice 

pleading applicable in Michigan. Dalley, 287 Mich App at 305. To the extent that the trial court 

or MAIPF believed that the form of this request for an order compelling MAIPF to assign the 

claim should have been different, the trial court should have permitted amendment of the 

complaints. When summary disposition is granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8), the trial court “must 

give the parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings pursuant to MCR 2.118, unless the 

amendment would be futile.” Shah, 324 Mich App at 209 (quotation marks and citation 

omitted); see also MCR 2.116(I)(5). “An amendment is futile if it merely restates the allegations 

already made or adds allegations that still fail to state a claim.” Shah, 324 Mich App at 209

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when 

justice so requires.” MCR 2.118(A)(2). In this case, permitting an amendment to the complaints 

for purposes of clarifying that the parties sought an order compelling MAIPF to fulfill its 

statutory obligations regarding assignment of the claim would not have been futile under these 

standards, and this amendment would have changed the complaint in form only and not 

substance. The trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaints in this 

respect.

Finally, the trial court also erred by denying MHSI and DMC leave to amend their 

complaint to allege an assignment-based theory of standing. It was clear from the outset of this 

litigation, and the face of the complaint itself, that MHSI and DMC were claiming an entitlement 

to recover PIP benefits based on their respective provision of medical services and 

accommodations to Garrett. There is no question that their claims were derivative of any right to 

recover PIP benefits that Garrett may have. Allowing MHSI and DMC to amend their complaint 

to clarify that their standing was based on an assignment from Garrett would not have changed 

anything about the merits of the lawsuit or the basis on which MHSI and DMC claimed that they 

were entitled to relief in this case. However, it is clear from the record that the trial court denied 

leave to amend solely because it would have preferred that MHSI and DMC had moved to 

amend their complaint earlier.

“[A] motion to amend should ordinarily be denied only for particularized reasons, 

including undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility.” Shah, 324 

Mich App at 208 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original). Our Supreme 

Court has stated, “While (a)s a general rule, the risk of substantial prejudice increases with the 

passage of time, in the absence of a showing of either bad faith or actual prejudice, mere delay 

does not warrant denial of a motion to amend.” Ben P Fyke & Sons, Inc v Gunter Co, 390 Mich 

649, 663-664; 213 NW2d 134 (1973) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

In this case, there was no record evidence that the proposed amendment to allege the 

existence of the assignment from Garrett would have caused any actual prejudice to MAIPF, nor 

is there evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive by MHSI or DMC. Counsel for MHSI and 
-10-

DMC provided a reasonable explanation for the delay by indicating their desire to name an 

insurance company defendant in the same motion for leave to amend. MHSI and DMC had 

previously filed a motion to compel MAIPF to assign an insurer, but the trial court denied that 

motion. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to reflect to 

assignments on the sole basis of the delay in seeking the amendment. The trial court’s assertions 

that the amendment was prejudicial and futile were not based on any further explanations or 

findings of fact, and such conclusions are unsupported by the record.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) 

and the trial court’s denial of leave to amend the complaints.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. Plaintiffs 

having prevailed are entitled to costs. MCR 7.219(A).

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly