No-fault action; PIP benefits; “Uninsured” under MCL 500.3177(1); Assignment of a claim by the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF); MCL 500.3172(1); Insurer priority; MCL 500.3114(4); Comparing Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co; Due diligence in trying to identify an insurer

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendants-rental car company (Executive) and insurer (National) summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff was a passenger in her sister’s rental car when they collided with a municipal van. She sued several defendants for her injuries. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court denied motions by Executive and National for summary disposition and found National liable for reimbursement of no-fault benefits. The cases were consolidated. On appeal, the court agreed with Executive that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) it is not an insurer, and thus plaintiff failed to state a valid claim; and (2) MCL 500.3177 did not apply and was not pleaded against it. First, “because Executive is not an insurer, it cannot be liable for no-fault benefits and plaintiff’s complaint, even as amended, was facially defective.” Second, there was “no dispute that Executive had an insurance policy through National that covered the rented [vehicle] at the time of the accident. Thus, the definition of ‘uninsured’ in MCL 500.3177(1) is not met, and the statute would not apply.” The court also agreed with National that the trial court erred by finding plaintiff could recover PIP benefits from defendant-Farmers where the MAIPF had no duty to assign her claim under MCL 500.3172, and that Farmers could then seek reimbursement from National. “Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in identifying the highest-priority insurer, and therefore, she is not entitled to PIP benefits.” Applying Griffin, the court concluded that she “failed to act with due diligence in trying to identify Executive’s insurer.” In addition, “under MCL 500.3114(4)(a), National would be the highest-priority insurer as the insurer of Executive, the owner of the vehicle.” Based on plaintiff’s “lack of due diligence, she is not entitled to recover any benefits, and moreover, the claim against National is barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, the trial court erred in determining that Farmers, as the assigned servicing insurer from the MAIPF, was responsible for paying plaintiff’s PIP benefits, and then entitled to reimbursement for any payment made from National.” Reversed and remanded.