Zaiya v Encompass Indemnity Company
Sajid Islam obtained summary disposition of Plaintiff’s claims for Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist benefits, and First-Party No-Fault benefits against his client, Encompass Indemnity Company. Sajid drafted a Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(6), (C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10) arguing that Plaintiff’s claims for Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist benefits should be dismissed in light of a separate action for such benefits that was pending in another Court. As it related to Plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits, Sajid argued that it had previously been determined that Plaintiff was domiciled with the insured of another No-Fault insurer, and that therefore, Plaintiff could not claim No-Fault benefits from Encompass. Further, it was also argued that Plaintiff had no claim under the terms of the Encompass policy. Finally, it was argued that the Encompass policy prohibited duplicate payments, and that any payment by Encompass would be a duplicate payment in light of a settlement agreement that Plaintiff entered into with another No-Fault carrier. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the arguments, granted the Motion for Summary Disposition and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.