Watch SMDA associate Sean Serafini’s April 9, 2026 argument before the Michigan Supreme Court in Frownfelter v Esurance Property & Casualty Co., et. al.

This case involves a minor child of divorced parents who was involved in an auto accident while she was a passenger in a car driven by her brother. Since her brother lived with her father, and the father owned the car, suit for her injuries had to be filed against her father. Additionally, suit was filed against both her mother’s and father’s respective no-fault insurers after they refused to pay for the child’s medical treatment and essentially just pointed the finger at each other.

There were two primary questions in this case. First, whether the minor child would get no-fault PIP benefits from her mother’s auto insurance or her father’s auto insurance. This question turned on where the child was considered “domiciled”.

The second issue was whether the minor child, who indisputably primarily lived with her mother, would be subject to a coverage reduction provision in her father’s policy of auto insurance, that would leave her father with only $20,000.00 of liability coverage instead of the $250,000.00 of coverage that he had purchased. This determination turned on the definition of “resident” in the policy of insurance that Esurance had written and issued to the father. Accordingly, this finding would also determine the amount the minor child, who suffered serious injuries to her spine, would be able to recover under the insurance policy.

Both the trial court and Court of Appeals held that the minor child’s domicile was with her father, because she had spent the night before the collision at her father’s house. Similarly, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that the child was a “resident” of her father’s house, such that the coverage reduction provision applied. SMDA appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear oral argument on the matter.

On April 9, 2026, Mr. Serafini argued for reversal of the lower court decisions before the Supreme Court. Regarding the first issue, Mr. Serafini argued that although the lower courts had incorrectly applied the existing test used to determine the domicile of a minor child of divorced parents, the Supreme Court should re-write the rule complete, as it had led to numerous conflicting Court of Appeals opinions in the previous few years. Amicus briefing in support of this position was submitted by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Association for Justice.

On the second issue, Mr. Serafini argued that Esurance should be forced to provide the $250,000.00 that the child’s father had bought and paid for. Though Esurance failed to define the term “resident” in the policy, Esurance argued that the term should be given the broadest meaning possible, such that the child would be considered a resident of her father’s household, when she did not live there and only visited about one weekend per month.

Mr. Serafini asserted that Esurance, with a team of coverage attorneys and underwriters, had no excuse for not defining the term “resident” if they truly intended to expand the term resident to include a person who spends a couple of nights per month at another family member’s house. However, since Esurance did not define the term, it was ambiguous, or subject to multiple meanings, as a matter of law. Mr. Serafini argued that because the Supreme Court has long held that any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be construed against the drafter of that contract, which was Esurance, and because the Court has repeatedly stated that insurance contracts should be construed in favor of providing coverage, the child’s father should get what he thought he was paying for: $250,000.00 of liability coverage.

The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to issue either a written order or opinion detailing its decision within the next few months.

Click here to read more about Attorney Sean Serafini.

Pursuant to Section 4 paragraph (b) the firm has identified its essential employees necessary to conduct minimal business transactions, like banking, payroll processing, employee benefits and ensuring that those of us that are working from home have the ability to work remotely. Each designated employee has a “transit letter” within his or her possession.

For compliance with the executive order the following information is available:

• Each shareholder/partner shall be present at the office during limited times and alternating in the days each is present. This is necessary to process checks, payments, and to provide support to other employees working remotely. Non-shareholder attorneys will be working remotely and shall not be present in the office.
• Our office manager shall be present during limited hours during the day to assist with minimal business transactions including payroll and banking.
• Only one of our two remaining working administrative assistants shall be present in the office during limited times to assist with processing mail and supporting the other attorneys working from home.

To protect the privacy of the individuals working in such capacity, government officials and or authorities may contact the firm. This notice is intended to comply with Executive Order 2020-21 4(b) which provides:

“Businesses and operations must make such designations in writing, whether by electronic message, public website, or other appropriate means. Such designations, however, may be made orally until March 31, 2020 at 11:59 pm.”

Among the changes:

• A three (3) lookback period.
• Changes to who can be a caregiver.
• A new “bright-line asset test” of $126,420.00

Following these changes, more people were able to apply and receive benefits without planning. However, planning is still important to not only remain eligible to receive benefits , but to also begin planning for Medicaid benefits–if nursing home care will be required in the future.

Most strategies will still involve supplementing your estate plan with an irrevocable trust to not only protect the assets that you have if you are under the new $126,420.oo threshold, but to also protect your home if in the event that it is sold AFTER you have already qualified for these benefits.

If you are residing in Michigan, a veteran, or family of a veteran either receiving these benefits or in need of VA A&A benefits, then you should call our office to learn more about longterm care planning. 866-529-ELDR or 586-264-3756.

The Covenant Medical Center Inc Vs State Farm Case and How It Could Affect Your No Fault Claim

The Supreme Court has made a major change concerning the rights of medical practitioners in no fault cases. Previous to this decision, medical practitioners could sue insurance companies independent from their patients, which, while beneficial to the medical practices themselves, this could potentially impair the injury victim’s claims. Medical practitioners would choose to try their own cases to win remuneration for medical costs of the patient without waiting for that patient to win their own case and compensate doctors on their own. They saw this as a form of protection for their bills, as, in some cases, when their patient won their case, they felt as if their medical bills were compromised. This new decision could affect their right to collect their bills separately, which could both potentially benefit and harm the patients.

How Could This Benefit Patients?

If the doctor’s own bills are included in the patient’s case, It is usually easier and less expensive to try the case as their testimony is required in order to support their own claims. However, when thero bills are not part of the patient’s case, they typically charge for their time to provide the testimony.

It is also easier for lawyers to negotiate a resolution when there is a larger amount at stake. When medical costs are taken out of a case, the amount in dispute can be significantly decreased which can make it harder to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the injury victim. Taking into account the percent that the law firm must charge to handle the case, the amount at stake without being able to leverage all the claims, including the medical costs, can affect the potential resolution.

How Could this Harm Patients/Medical Providers?

Due to this ruling, Medical Practitioners are left with fewer options to protect their own bills. In order to be compensated, they must obtain an assignment from the patient or, potentially sue the patient directly. Although the Supreme Court provided for the option of an assignment in the Covenant opinion, the auto insurance companies have been arguing that patients cannot assign their rights. Moreover, there is another issue when the patient has disappeared or is unwilling to cooperate in litigation. The second option has the potential to cause additional and unneeded financial and emotional harm to the patient. Overall, this decision has the potential to put both the patient and their medical care provider in a difficult position not to mention that there is a very real possibility of destroying the all important trust that you must have in any physician patient relationship.

Overall

The repercussions and consequences, both intended and unintended, of the Covenant vs State Farm case on First Party or No-Fault Litigation may take years to sort out. In the meantime, it falls upon the attorneys who represent the victims of automobile collisions and the medical care professionals who treat them to make sure they work together to ensure that their respective clients continue to receive the compensation that they deserve.

Related Posts: HAS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY BOUGHT ITS JUSTICE?, Fatal Car Crash Suit Settled, SUPREME COURT DENIES CAR INSURER EFFORT TO DODGE RESPONSIBILITY

LIFE IMITATES ARE WHICH IMITATES LIFE (Or something like that)

All I want or expect from any court or judge is a fair chance. I want an unbiased judge to look at the facts and the law and call it the way they see it. However, there appears to be a disturbing trend…

In John Grisham’s novel “The Appeal” a dastardly corporation works behind the scene (secretly donates large sums of money) to get a state supreme court Justice elected. It turns out that the corporation had a case working its way up to the very same supreme court. To no ones shock the justice then votes in favor of the corporation.

Grisham’s novel is loosely based on the the real life case of Caperton v Massey Energy Case where Massey CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million dollars of his own money to elect judge Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia supreme court who then voted to overturn a $50 million dollar verdict against Massey.

It recently came to light that State Farm allegedly contributed $4 million dollars to get Lloyd Karmeier elected to the Illinois supreme court. Guess who was the key vote to overturn a $1 billion dollar verdict against State Farm? If you guessed Lloyd Karmeier you would be correct. Has State Farm bought its Illinois Justice? You be the Judge. Makes you wonder which other supreme court judges State Farm has worked to elect?

Related Posts: No-Fault Insurance Change, Fatal Car Crash Suit Settled, SUPREME COURT DENIES CAR INSURER EFFORT TO DODGE RESPONSIBILITY

Toyota Settles with family killed in car crash.

All of us have seen the news about the problems Toyota was having with their cars last year. According to reports, acceleration would start and the consumer would not be able to stop the car. This led to massive recalls and many lawsuits against Toyota. In particular, many brought product liability cases against Toyota claiming that they made faulty products that caused injury or death.

One of these cases has finally come to a close. According to newspaper reports, Mark Saylor, a California Highway Patrol Officer’s 2009 Lexus ES350 accelerated out of control reaching speeds of 120 mph, when it crashed and crashed into a riverbed. Killed in the accident were Saylor; his wife, Cleofe; their 13-year-old daughter, Mahala; and Saylor’s brother-in-law, Christopher Lastrella. All of them lived together in Chula Vista. Saylor was a seasoned officer with years of experience patrolling from behind a wheel.

On Friday, September 17th, Toyota Motor Corp. settled with the family of Mark Saylor, a California Highway Patrol Officer who was killed in an accident that involved unintended acceleration. Mark Saylor’s wife, 13-year-old daughter and his brother-in-law were also killed in the accident. It was this car accident that put the Toyota recalls into the public sphere. The family and Toyota Motor Corp. have not disclosed how much the settlement amount was for.

Settling this case allows Toyota to avoid speaking or admitting to any defects in its cars. Although this is by no means telling, this is just the beginning of many product liability suits against Toyota relating to unintended acceleration problems with their vehicles. The family of the victims has also brought a negligence claim against the dealership. This lawsuit is still pending.

If this crash had happened in Michigan, the value of the family’s claims would have been reduced by the product liability caps put in place by the Michigan Legislature.

Related Posts: No-Fault Insurance Change, HAS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY BOUGHT ITS JUSTICE?, SUPREME COURT DENIES CAR INSURER EFFORT TO DODGE RESPONSIBILITY