WHEN MIKEY MET RIKKY (MR. WONDERFUL)

Left to Right: David Landry, Nancy Dembinski and Rik Mazzeo

Since July of 2015, I have had the pleasure of working at Landry, Mazzeo, and Dembinski, in Farmington Hills.  

When I was a plaintiff lawyer, I had many cases against the firm.  Today’s story is about my first case with Rik, “Mr. Wonderful” Mazzeo.

At every given time, every attorney has a case which holds the title of “worst case on my docket”.  At the time of this story, this motorcycle v auto accident case was mine.  My client was the  motorcycle operator.

A little note about how the Michigan No-Fault Law deals with motorcycles.  Though they have a motor and operate on the roads, they are excluded from the definition of motor vehicles (being defined as vehicles with more than 2 wheels).  Motorcycles are not required to have No-Fault coverage.  The motorcyclist involved in an accident gets his PIP benefits from the carrier that covered the car involved in the accident.

At one time in the past, the motorcycle did not need to carry liability coverage either.  That law changed on or about the exact date of the accident in my case.  The change required that the motorcycle have liability coverage in place in order to get PIP benefits from the involved car’s insurance company.  Simple, isn’t it.  But stay with this, folks, because it’s brilliant.

Let’s say the new law went into effect on March 5 the year of the accident.  If the accident happened on March 5 or later, the motorcycle had to have liability insurance in order to get PIP from the involved car’s insurance company.  If the accident happened before March 5, the motorcycle did not need to have its own liability coverage.

As something of a warning of things to come, when I got the file, there were 2 accident reports, one saying the accident happened on March 1 and another saying the accident happened on March 7.  My client, as you might guess, did not have liability coverage on his motorcycle, so the actual date of the accident became vitally important to his claim for PIP benefits.   I think the second accident report was issued at the request of the client, who felt that, first time round, the police not only got the accident date wrong, but blamed him for the accident as well

My hero (client), was also self employed at the time of the accident, with no paperwork to support his wage loss claim.  He also had treated for his injuries with one of the noted auto injury treaters of the day (the doctor is currently serving time in federal prison).  And, of course, there were service claims unsupported by provider affidavits.

And, as you would expect, my client was a jerk.  An "operator" who knew everything, and could not be prepared/warned for the questioning to come .  A "real" man, this unmarried "hunk" of burning love would testify, repeatedly, that his injuries impeded his ability to "poke" (his words) women after the accident.

Enter into the mix that fine December 22nd afternoon, one Rik Mazzeo, who introduced himself to me and my client as "Mr. Wonderful".  This was our first meeting, and I had not been forewarned.  Rik was already a legend (it took me a little longer to become one).  

A highly intelligent, and well-prepared advocate, Rik has always been possessed of an acerbic wit that he uses to great effect in all aspects of his work.  Click here.

The perfect storm broke that day.  In retrospect, I think that Rik felt he would have been insulting me by not picking all of the low hanging fruit my client's case supplied.  And he picked that orchard bare.  The 2pm dep ended at 6:45.  And, while I couldn't fault Rik for taking my client apart with style and flair (especially as my guy had no idea what was happening), I have told Rik that at the end of the deposition I wanted to punch him (Rik, well both Rik and my client) in the mouth.  He took that as a compliment.

And, at the end of the afternoon and early evening's entertainment, Rik asked me if I wanted to go out for a drink.  I must say, that took me by surprise.  I did decline, as I was still mad and as as a young attorney working 7 days and nights a week with the firm of Thurswell, Chayet and Weiner, I had not yet begun Christmas shopping for my young family.

The combined 1st and 3rd party case did not mediate (as case evaluation was called in those days) well, and at that time Wayne Circuit had a program of "removing" to District Court, cases that mediated under the Court's jurisdictional limit, at that time $10,000.

So, we were off to 36th District Court for a Settlement Conference with the not so legendary and not so well remembered Judge John Cozart.  Judge Cozart was not "user-friendly" or a "people person".  I don't think I ever saw him smile.  Long gone from the bench, he has not left much of a digital footprint.  Except for the case of  Lockhart v 36th District Court Judge 204 Mich. App. 684 1994.  In that case a Writ of Superintending Control issued against Judge Cozart for his courtroom antics was upheld.  

At the Settlement Conference in my case, rather than discuss resolution, Judge Cozart instructed Rik to file a Summary Disposition motion on both the first party and third party claims.  Rik said he really would like to discuss resolving the claims (for an extremely modest figure), but Judge Cozart insisted.   He told us to come back on a certain date, by which time those motions must be filed.  So, Rik filed the motions.  I responded.  The motions did come up for oral argument, and the judge granted the motions, on both counts, as follows:

"On the first party case, I rule that the accident happened on March 7, and as the plaintiff did not have insurance on his motorcycle, his claim for No-Fault benefits from the defendant's insurer is dismissed.

On the third party case, I rule that the accident happened on March 1, and as the plaintiff did not get any treatment until March 7, he must not have been injured  seriously, and his injury claim is dismissed as not meeting the Serious Impairment threshold."

So, for the first and I trust the only time in my life, a judge ruled that as a matter of law, a single accident happened on 2 different dates, 6 days apart.

I left the firm a few days after filing the Claim of Appeal, and to no one's surprise, the ruling was reversed on both cases and there was ultimately an extremely modest resolution of the claims.

As I never had another case before Judge Cozart, the case ended happily for me as well.