BASH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOVILE INSURANCE COMPANY Leagle.com
BASH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOVILE INSURANCE COMPANY
DALE BASH, KERRIE BASH, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
PETSMART SMART CHOICES BENEFIT PLAN, Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
Case No. 08-14967-BC.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division.
April 23, 2010.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING STATE FARM'S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING THE PLAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTTHOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.
The primary issue raised in this declaratory judgment action is whether Defendant PetSmart Smart Choices Benefit Plan ("the Plan"), is entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of Plaintiff Kerrie Bash, who sustained catastrophic injuries in an automobile accident, from a tort recovery settlement primarily based on the recovery of non-economic damages. If the Plan is entitled to reimbursement from the tort recovery settlement, the question becomes whether State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), as Kerrie Bash's first-party insurer, is in turn obligated to reimburse the Estate of Kerrie Bash for those funds paid to the Plan.