June 8, 2026
/
seva firm
,
By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq.
*he Seva Law Firm
Case: AdvisaCare Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Nos. 366353; 366546 (Mich. Ct. App. June 8, 2026) (Unpublished — On Remand from Supreme Court)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Panel: Swartzle, P.J., and Murray and Ackerman, JJ.
Decision: Reversed and Remanded — Per Curiam
Lower Court: Kent Circuit Court, Case No. 18-004210-NF
[Read the full opinion here]https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49c77b/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20260608_c366353_92_366353o.opn.pdf
—
1. Introduction
In a consolidated no-fault appeal that has bounced between the Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has issued its third — and likely final — opinion addressing a tangled web of procedural missteps involving two sister insurance companies, a medical provider seeking reimbursement for attendant care services, and the one-year-back rule under MCL 500.3145(2). In *AdvisaCare Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.*, the Court held that because Auto-Owners never properly amended or withdrew its judicial admissions acknowledging it was the responsible insurer, those admissions remain binding — and Auto-Owners, not Home-Owners, must bear liability for the attendant care services provided. The decision is a sharp reminder that judicial admissions are not casual statements, and that an insurer’s own procedural failures can determine the outcome of a case.
2. Facts
Carol and Sandra Schulz were injured in a motor vehicle accident and received attendant care services from AdvisaCare Healthcare Solutions, Inc. Their actual no-fault insurer was Home-Owners Insurance Company. However, AdvisaCare mistakenly filed its complaint for PIP benefits against Auto-Owners Insurance Company — a sister company of Home-Owners under the Auto-Owners Insurance Group umbrella.
The confusion was not entirely AdvisaCare’s fault. In response to AdvisaCare’s requests for admissions, Auto-Owners admitted that it insured the Schulzes under an automobile insurance policy and was the insurer of highest priority for no-fault benefits. This admission was false — Home-Owners was the actual insurer. Auto-Owners later attempted to correct its answer by filing supplemental responses several months later, but it never filed a motion to formally amend or withdraw the admissions as required under MCR 2.312(D)(1).
Meanwhile, the Schulzes had separately sued Home-Owners in Ottawa Circuit Court. All parties stipulated to transfer the Schulzes’ case to Kent Circuit Court and consolidate it with AdvisaCare’s case against Auto-Owners. During the consolidation process, the parties noted that both cases involved the “same defendant,” further compounding the confusion between the two corporate entities.
Eventually, AdvisaCare moved to substitute Home-Owners for Auto-Owners, and the trial court granted the motion. After a two-day trial, the jury awarded AdvisaCare $149,196.83 in allowable expenses and $101,528.27 in penalty interest — a total of $250,725.10 — against Home-Owners. The trial court also awarded attorney fees under MCL 500.3148.
Home-Owners appealed, and this case has been through two prior Court of Appeals opinions and a Supreme Court remand order before reaching this final resolution.
3. Issues
On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals was directed to address four specific questions:
1. Did Auto-Owners create the one-year-back problem through false answers to requests for admissions? Auto-Owners admitted it was the responsible insurer, then tried to take it back without following the proper court rules.
2. Did the consolidation of the two cases mean AdvisaCare had standing through the Schulzes’ assignments? — AdvisaCare argued that because the cases were consolidated, Carol Schulz’s assignment (which was never properly filed in AdvisaCare’s case) should carry over.
3. Does the misnomer doctrine apply? — Could naming Auto-Owners instead of Home-Owners be treated as a simple misnaming rather than suing the wrong party?
4. Was the directed verdict motion procedurally proper? — AdvisaCare challenged whether Home-Owners could raise the one-year-back rule through a directed verdict motion.
4. Holding
The Court of Appeals answered all four questions and reversed the trial court.
On the judicial admissions (Issue 1): The Court held that Auto-Owners’ admissions were never properly withdrawn or amended. Under MCR 2.312(D)(1), a judicial admission is conclusively established unless the court grants a motion to withdraw or amend it. Auto-Owners never filed such a motion — it simply submitted “supplemental” answers months later. The Court distinguished between supplementing a prior denial (which can be done under MCR 2.302(E)) and attempting to reverse a prior admission (which requires formal court approval under MCR 2.312). Because Auto-Owners failed to follow the proper procedure, its admissions remained binding. For purposes of this case, Auto-Owners — not Home-Owners — was the responsible insurer.
On consolidation and standing (Issue 2): The Court held that consolidation did not merge the two cases into one. Under MCR 2.505(A), consolidated cases generally retain their separate identities. The Schulzes’ case against Home-Owners and AdvisaCare’s case against Auto-Owners remained separate actions tried together for efficiency. Because Carol Schulz’s assignment was never filed in AdvisaCare’s case (and was in fact signed the day after AdvisaCare filed its complaint), AdvisaCare had standing to recover only for attendant care services provided to Sandra, not Carol.
On the misnomer doctrine (Issue 3): The Court held that the misnomer doctrine does not apply. Auto-Owners and Home-Owners are separate corporate entities. The misnomer doctrine corrects inconsequential deficiencies in the naming of parties — it does not permit the substitution of an entirely different party. The Court relied on its prior unpublished decision in *Turner v. Auto-Owners Ins Co* (2021), which held on nearly identical facts that naming Auto-Owners when Home-Owners was the correct insurer was not a mere misnomer.
On the directed verdict (Issue 4): The Court held that the directed verdict motion was procedurally proper. Home-Owners raised the one-year-back rule as an affirmative defense in its answer and relied on undisputed evidence — the dates of service on AdvisaCare’s own medical bills — to support the motion. The one-year-back rule is an affirmative defense, but when the facts supporting it are undisputed, a directed verdict is the appropriate mechanism.
The bottom line: The Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the directed verdict and remanded for entry of judgment against Auto-Owners — not Home-Owners — for the attendant care services AdvisaCare provided to Sandra only.
#5. Conclusion
After three trips through the Court of Appeals and one Supreme Court remand, this case reaches its conclusion with a result driven almost entirely by procedural missteps. Auto-Owners’ failure to properly amend its judicial admissions meant it remained the responsible insurer, even though everyone knew Home-Owners was the actual policy issuer. The consolidation of two related cases did not merge them into one, leaving AdvisaCare without standing to recover for Carol’s services. And the misnomer doctrine — a narrow exception for inconsequential naming errors — could not bridge the gap between two separate corporate entities.
6. What Does This Mean for Our Clients?
This decision carries several important lessons for anyone involved in a Michigan no-fault claim — whether you are an injured person, a medical provider, or an attendant care provider seeking reimbursement.
Judicial admissions are binding — and insurers cannot casually walk them back. When an insurance company admits something in response to a request for admissions, that admission is conclusively established unless the court formally allows it to be withdrawn. In this case, Auto-Owners admitted it was the responsible insurer and then tried to take it back through informal “supplemental” answers. The Court held that this was insufficient — the admission stuck. This is a powerful tool for claimants and providers: if an insurer makes an admission during discovery, hold them to it.
Sue the right insurer — and act quickly if you realize there is a problem. AdvisaCare filed against Auto-Owners when it should have filed against Home-Owners. While the confusion was partly caused by Auto-Owners’ own false admissions, the misnomer doctrine could not save the situation. If you discover that you have sued the wrong entity, move immediately to correct it. The longer you wait, the more likely the one-year-back rule or other procedural defenses will create problems.
Consolidation does not merge separate cases. If you have related claims in separate lawsuits, consolidation may make them more efficient to litigate, but each case retains its own identity. Assignments, pleadings, and evidence filed in one case do not automatically carry over to the other. Make sure each case has its own proper documentation.
The one-year-back rule remains a critical deadline. Under MCL 500.3145(2), PIP benefits are generally limited to those that became overdue within one year before the action was commenced against the responsible insurer. Naming the wrong insurer — even a corporate sibling — does not toll this deadline against the correct insurer. Time matters in no-fault cases, and delays in identifying the proper defendant can be fatal to a claim.
Pay attention to the corporate structure of insurance groups. Auto-Owners and Home-Owners are sister companies under the same corporate umbrella, and even their own counsel and adjusters confused which entity held the policy. Claimants and providers should verify the exact corporate entity on the declarations page of the policy before filing suit. A mistake that seems minor — filing against the parent company instead of the subsidiary, or one sister company instead of another — can have devastating consequences.
If you have questions about a no-fault insurance claim, or if your insurer is using procedural technicalities to avoid paying benefits you are owed, contact The Seva Law Firm. We understand the complexities of Michigan no-fault law and will fight to make sure your claim is handled correctly.
Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.