Payment of PIP benefits; Priority defense; MCL 500.3114(4); “Eligible injured person”; “Insured person”; Applicability of the mend-the-hold doctrine; Mootness; Proposed complaint amendment to add a promissory estoppel claim

In these consolidated appeals arising from defendant-Progressive’s denial of PIP benefits to plaintiff-Ridenour, the court held that given the absence of any indication in the policy language that Progressive intended for Ridenour to be an insured for purposes of PIP coverage, Progressive was not his “insurer for purposes of determining priority for payment of his PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(4).” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Progressive, denial of Ridenour’s cross-motion for summary disposition, and denial of his motion to amend his complaint to add a promissory estoppel claim. The trial court properly granted Progressive summary disposition because Progressive was “not the insurer of the owner, registrant, or operator of the vehicle involved in the accident.” Ridenour contended the mend-the-hold doctrine precluded “Progressive from prevailing on its priority defense because it did not reference that defense in its pre-suit correspondence denying his claim for PIP benefits.” The court noted that “Progressive’s stated reason for denying the claim was that there was fraud in the procurement of the policy.” Ridenour argued “under the general rule of the mend-the-hold doctrine, Progressive’s failure to fully apprise [him] of additional defenses that it intended to rely upon was a waiver that estops it from maintaining its priority defense.” But the court concluded that “Progressive is not in the order of priority to pay no-fault benefits on Ridenour’s claim because, under the terms of the no-fault policy, Ridenour is not an individual eligible for benefits, nor is Progressive the insurer of Ridenour, i.e., the owner, registrant, and operator of the motor vehicle involved in the crash. Application of the mend-the-hold doctrine would, therefore, broaden the coverage of the no-fault policy to protect against a risk that was not included in the policy. As a result, the priority defense falls within the exception to the mend-the-hold doctrine and is permissible in this case.”