Case Name: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VICTOR P. VALENTINO, J.D., P.C., Defendant-Appellee.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2019-03-27
Citations: 924 N.W.2d 239
Docket Number: SC: 158052; COA: 339198
Parties: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VICTOR P. VALENTINO, J.D., P.C., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 924
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VICTOR P. VALENTINO, J.D., P.C., Defendant-Appellee.
SC: 158052
COA: 339198
Supreme Court of Michigan.
March 27, 2019
Order

Opinion:
On order of the Court, the motion to respond to amici briefs is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment. The Court of Appeals found this Court's decision in Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co. , 500 Mich. 191, 895 N.W.2d 490 (2017), "dispositive." Covenant held that a healthcare provider possesses no statutory cause of action against an insurer for recovery of PIP benefits. Plaintiff is a healthcare provider. But the plaintiff is not seeking payment from an insurance provider for no-fault benefits under a statutory no-fault theory. Rather, the plaintiff's complaint alleges a common-law tort-conversion-against the defendant, an attorney, based on the defendant's retention of one-third of the funds from a check that was made payable directly to both plaintiff and defendant. Although a healthcare provider has no statutory cause of action against an insurer to compel payment under the no-fault act, the act permits insurers to directly pay healthcare providers on the injured person's behalf. MCL 500.3112. The insurer did so here. "[I]f an instrument is payable to 2 or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them ." MCL 440.3110(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the plaintiff, as joint payee, had a right to control the funds. Covenant is not dispositive on the question presented here. We REMAND this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
Bernstein, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship.