Automobile insurance coverage; Whether plaintiff was entitled to have an out-of-state policy reformed to comply with the requirements of Michigan’s No-Fault Act (NFA) under MCL 500.3012 (governing the issuance of a noncomplying insurance policy); Distinguishing Farm Bureau Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co

The court concluded that because there was no evidence that defendant-insurer “knew or should have known that it was issuing a policy to a Michigan resident, neither MCL 500.3012” nor the court’s opinion in Farm Bureau supported that plaintiff-insured was entitled to relief. The case arose from a 11/17 motor vehicle accident and subsequent dispute as to plaintiff’s automobile insurance coverage. Plaintiff claimed that “she had informed defendant that she had moved to Michigan before the motor vehicle accident and that she believed that her Maryland policy was a Michigan no-fault policy at the time of the accident.” She argued that she was entitled to have the Maryland policy reformed to comply with the requirements of the NFA under MCL 500.3012. “The question in Farm Bureau was whether the insurer knew or had reason to know that it was ‘dealing with a Michigan resident’ at the time the policy was issued. If an insurer had such knowledge but nevertheless issued an out-of-state policy to a Michigan resident, we construed MCL 500.3012 to permit a trial court to reform the out-of-state policy to include the missing Michigan PIP benefits.” The issue here was very different from the issue resolved by Farm Bureau. Here, there was “no dispute that defendant properly issued a Maryland policy to plaintiff, who was a Maryland resident at the time the time policy was issued.” Plaintiff’s argument on appeal was that “she informed defendant during the policy year that she was moving to Michigan and that she believed that the information she had provided converted her out-of-state policy to a Michigan policy. Although plaintiff presented an affidavit to support that she moved to Michigan ‘on or about October 2, 2017’ and that she informed defendant ‘[a]round that same time’ that she ‘was moving to Michigan,’ there is no evidence that defendant issued another policy that purported to be a Michigan policy. Indeed, plaintiff provided the Maryland insurance policy to law enforcement after” the accident. Affirmed.