Priority dispute between insurers under the No-Fault Act; MCL 500.3114; Subrogation; Titan Ins Co v North Pointe Ins Co; The one-year limitations period for subrogation claims; MCL 500.3145(1); The six-year limitations period for other personal actions; MCL 600.5813; Partial recoupment; MCL 500.3115(2); “The person named in the policy” or “the named insured”; MCL 500.3114(1); Corwin v DaimlerChrysler Ins Co; Whether “the named insured” included “assigned drivers”; Distinguishing Cvengros v Farm Bureau Ins; Res judicata; Richards v Tibaldi

The court held that the trial court erred by ruling that plaintiff-Auto Club’s complaint was untimely, but did not err by dismissing certain healthcare providers from this case. Auto Club sued defendant-Farm Bureau, as well as an assigned driver (Shamoon, who was injured in a car accident) under Auto Club’s policy, and several of her healthcare providers, claiming Farm Bureau was a higher-priority insurer and thus, solely liable for payment of Shamoon’s no-fault benefits. It sought reimbursement of all benefits it had paid. The trial court ruled that because Farm Bureau was the higher-priority insurer, plaintiff’s lawsuit was a subrogation claim subject to the one-year-back rule. It further entered an order dismissing all remaining parties, including the healthcare providers. The court agreed with Auto Club that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on the basis that its complaint was time-barred. “Because Shamoon was an assigned driver who was injured in the specific vehicle designated in the policy declarations, plaintiff’s policy plainly provided that Shamoon is a ‘named insured’ for the present purposes. Because ‘named insured’ is ‘synonymous with’ the statutory term ‘person named in the policy,’ Shamoon was a ‘person named’ with respect to plaintiff’s policy, and the trial court erred by ruling otherwise. And because it is undisputed that she was also a ‘person named in the policy’ issued by Farm Bureau, the parties have equal priority.” As such, the MCL 500.3145(1)’s one-year limitations period “did not apply to plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement.” However, the court rejected Auto Club’s argument that the trial court improperly dismissed the healthcare providers because res judicata required it to include them in order to prevent them from relitigating the issues decided in this case. It noted that nothing about the dispute between Auto Club and Farm Bureau will resolve any dispute between Auto Club and the providers. “The healthcare providers are pursuing litigation in the district court to obtain payment for services they provided to Shamoon.” Whether they “are entitled to payment for those services is not connected to the dispute” at issue here, which concerned respective responsibilities for covering Shamoon’s benefits. “The healthcare providers have no role to play in resolving that controversy.” In fact, the apportionment issue “is not even relevant to the district court suit.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.