Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for medical services provided to an insured; Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Effect of an assignment of rights; Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Whether an unambiguous anti-assignment clause is enforceable; Roger Williams Ins. Co. v. Carrington; The one-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145(1); Burkhardt v. Bailey

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendant-insurer in plaintiff-medical service provider’s action seeking PIP benefits for medical services it provided to defendant’s insured after an accident. The trial court found that Covenant precluded recovery of PIP benefits, and that the anti-assignment provision in the insurance policy was clear and unambiguous and that the insured could not assign his rights to plaintiff. On appeal, the court found that enforcing the anti-assignment clause would be contrary to public policy. However, even though the anti-assignment clause was unenforceable, it concluded that remand to the trial court was unnecessary because plaintiffs’ action was barred by the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1). “Plaintiffs seek the payment of no-fault benefits for losses incurred between December 12, 2012, which was the date of the car accident, and January 26, 2016, which was the date that the original complaint was filed. Because the right to seek no-fault benefits only relates back one year from the date of assignment on June 1, 2017, plaintiffs can only recover no-fault benefits for medical services rendered between June 1, 2016, and June 1, 2017.” However, there was “no evidence in the record indicating that plaintiffs provided medical care to” the insured between these dates. Thus, “although the trial court erred by finding that the anti-assignment clause was enforceable, remand would be futile because the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1), prevents plaintiffs from recovering.” Affirmed.