Motion to amend complaint to reinstate a defendant-insurer as a party to the case; MCR 2.118(A)(2); Futility; Miller v. Chapman Contracting; The No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3172(1); Whether plaintiff was qualified to receive benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP); The Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Association Act (MCL 500.7901 et seq.); Insolvent insurer defined; MCL 500.7921(a); Covered claims defined; MCL 500.7925(1); MCL 500.8156(1); Distinguishing Spencer v. Citizens Ins. Co.

Holding that the trial court was correct that plaintiff was not qualified to receive benefits through the MACP under MCL 500.3172(1)’s plain language, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend the complaint to reinstate defendant-Farmers Insurance Exchange as a party to the case. Plaintiff, a truck driver, was allegedly injured in an accident in Michigan. The owner of the vehicle, his employer, insured it with a policy from defendant-Lincoln General obtained in Illinois. Plaintiff filed a claim with the MACP, which assigned Farmers to handle the claim. After prior litigation, he filed this case due to concern that Lincoln General would become insolvent. Given that it was not insolvent at the time, Farmers successfully moved for summary disposition. Later, “Lincoln General did become insolvent and moved for dismissal.” Plaintiff then unsuccessfully moved for leave to reinstate Farmers. Farmers contended that amending the complaint to bring it back into the case would be futile because plaintiff was “not qualified to receive benefits through the MACP where none of the conditions” of § 3172(1) were met when he filed an MACP claim. The court agreed. Plaintiff acknowledged in his brief on appeal that “he was aware of the existence of the no-fault policy with Lincoln General from the outset” after the accident but was “uncertain whether he would be able to obtain benefits from it. Since Lincoln General conceded that the policy applied, and plaintiff admitted knowing about the Lincoln General policy, the first two conditions set forth in § 3172(1) are not applicable. Similarly,” when he made his “MACP claim, there were not two insurers disputing which one had coverage. The only no-fault policy at issue at that point was the Lincoln General policy. Finally,” the record confirmed that “while Lincoln General, at the time plaintiff made his MACP claim, may have been undergoing financial difficulties, [it] was not, because of ‘financial inability’ unable to ‘fulfill [its] obligations’ to provide no-fault benefits to the maximum amount required.” Now that it was insolvent, the onus was “on plaintiff to pursue the appropriate redress to recover payments for his no-fault benefits.”