Opinion
No. 343358
09-19-2019
ESTATE OF MILDRED LYLE, by CHERI LYLE HUDNUT, Personal Representative, Plaintiff-Appellant, and MICHIGAN HEAD & SPINE INSTITUTE, PC, and VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, WILLIE FRANK WILLIAMS, and MOTOR CITY TOWING SERVICE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 17-017579-NI Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and SWARTZLE, JJ. SWARTZLE, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. Writing in dissent in Lansing Schools Education Association v Lansing Board of Education, 487 Mich 349; 792 NW2d 686 (2010), Justice Corrigan aptly observed that our current standing jurisprudence is a "broad and amorphous principle that promises to be nearly impossible to apply in a society that operates under the rule of law." Id. at 417 (CORRIGAN, J., dissenting); see also Olsen v Jude & Reed, LLC, 325 Mich App 170, 193 n 7; 924 NW2d 889 (2018). With that said, the majority faithfully sets out the standard crafted in that case, and I agree that the medical providers have met our current standard.
As for intervention, I do not agree that the medical providers have established grounds for permissive intervention under MCR 2.209(B). There is no suggestion that "a Michigan statute or court rule confers a conditional right to intervene," MCR 2.209(B)(1), and therefore the medical providers must rely on MCR 2.209(B)(2). Yet, the medical providers have not identified a specific, viable "claim or defense" of their own, and this is a necessary condition of permissive intervention under MCR 2.209(B)(2). I do agree with my colleagues, however, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting intervention under MCR 2.209(A).
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle