Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


ROBERT A. VICHINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF MICHIGAN, AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, AAA MICHIGAN and RODERICK MACKENZIE, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED January 5, 1999

No. 203005 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 96-603388 NZ

Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and O'Connell and Whitbeck, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) with respect to plaintiff's violation of public policy and breach of contract claims. The trial court had previously granted summary disposition in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) with respect to plaintiff's Whistle-Blowers' Protection Act (the "WPA"), MCL 15.361 et seq.; MSA 17.428(1) et seq., and professional negligence claims. We affirm. I. Basic Facts And Procedural History Plaintiff was employed as a claims representative by defendants Automobile Club of Michigan, Auto Club Insurance Association, and AAA Michigan (collectively the "ACIA"). Defendant MacKenzie is an ACIA employee who allegedly fired plaintiff because he testified in a deposition in a no-fault insurance claimant's lawsuit against ACIA that ACIA is understaffed, that it does not have a procedure manual for paying claims and that it routinely fails to pay claims in a timely manner as required by law. Plaintiff filed suit and the trial court granted summary disposition as indicated supra.

-1

II. Standard of Review A. Motions Under MCR 2.116(C)(8) This Court reviews a decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Eason v Coggins Church, 210 Mich App 261, 263; 532 NW2d 882 (1995). "A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone." Id. Such a motion should be granted when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a recovery. Id. This Court accepts as true all factual allegations supporting the claim, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from those allegations. Id. "However, mere conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action." Id. B. Motions Under MCR 2.116(C)(10) A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. Baker v Arbor Drugs, 215 Mich App 198, 202; 544 NW2d 727 (1996). Such a motion tests the factual basis of a plaintiff's allegations. Id. This Court must view the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and any other documentary evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. This Court must then decide "whether a genuine issue regarding any material fact exists to warrant a trial." Id. C. Discovery We review a trial court's decision regarding whether to grant a motion to compel discovery for an abuse of discretion. Eyde v Eyde, 172 Mich App 49, 54; 431 NW2d 459 (1988). III. Plaintiff's WPA Claim Plaintiff's argues that the trial court should not have granted summary disposition in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) with respect to plaintiff's WPA claim. We disagree. We find that plaintiff did not state a cause of action under

Download ROBERT A VICHINSKY V AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF MICHIGAN.pdf

Michigan Law