Action for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF); MCL 500.3172(1); Spectrum Health Hosps v Michigan Assigned Claims Plan; Priority dispute; Whether plaintiff was an “employee” making the insurers of his work truck higher priority insurers than his personal insurers; MCL 500.3114(3); The economic-reality test

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court held that the trial court erred by granting defendant-MAIPF’s motion for summary disposition, and reversed and remanded. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident while hauling goods from Michigan to Missouri. He applied for PIP benefits to the MAIPF, noting a dispute between defendant-Farm Bureau, which insured his personal vehicles, and defendant-Great American, which insured the work truck he was driving. The MAIPF denied his claim, and plaintiff filed suit. The trial court granted summary disposition for the MAIPF, noting once it was determined that nonparty-Hudson had the highest priority, there was no longer any dispute amongst insurers. The court now agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting MAIPF’s motion for summary disposition, noting the “MAIPF should not have denied the claim and should have assigned it through the facility, and the trial court erred when it concluded otherwise.” Plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits “was not ‘obviously ineligible’ because the application clearly stated that the reason for the assignment was that there was a dispute between Great American and Farm Bureau, and plaintiff provided the claim numbers for each of those insurers.” The court disagreed with the MAIPF’s contention that because plaintiff never provided the requested documentation showing the dispute, it could deny the claim. “First, the MAIPF [did] not cite any authority that would allow it to deny a claim on the sole basis that an applicant did not provide ‘proof’ of a dispute.” Second, the MAIPF “had plaintiff’s complaint, as well as the answers from Farm Bureau and Great American denying liability.” As such, at a minimum, “plaintiff’s claim to the MAIPF, which was made on the basis of a dispute between two or more insurers, could not be considered ‘obviously ineligible. . . .’” Thus, the MAIPF “was obligated to assign the claim.”