Declaratory-judgment action; Whether MCL 500.3009(1) automatically increased the insured’s policy limits on 7/2/20; Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena; Whether a policy was “issued or renewed” under MCL 500.3009(8); Whether the policy was “delivered or issued for delivery” after 7/1/20

The court held that the trial court erred by denying summary disposition for defendant-insurer and granting summary disposition for plaintiffs-insureds. Plaintiffs were injured in a car accident caused by defendant’s insured (defendant-Williams). They initially sued Williams, but when defendant offered to settle for the limits stated in its policy with Williams, they commenced this declaratory-judgment action to resolve whether defendant was liable up to the $20,000/$40,000 limit stated in Williams’ policy or up to the new statutorily-mandated $250,000/$500,000 limit. Defendant counterclaimed, then moved for summary disposition, to resolve the same question. The trial court found Williams’ 2020 change in vehicles, coupled with defendant’s sending of the “auto insurance coverage summary” to Williams, fulfilled the statutory conditions to impose the higher limits, so it denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition for plaintiffs. On appeal, the court noted Pena was controlling. Pena held that the applicable policy limits did not automatically increase on 7/2/20. The court then turned to “the only potential wrinkle in this case,” that defendant, “at Williams’ request, changed the insured vehicle under the policy after [7/1/20] and sent Williams an ‘auto insurance coverage summary’ reflecting that change.” It found that defendant “sufficiently support[ed] its argument that it did not deliver or issue for delivery a policy to Williams after” 7/1/20, which “shifted the burden to plaintiffs to submit documentary evidence setting forth a genuine issue of material fact about whether” defendant did so. However, they only pointed to the 7/6/20 insurance coverage summary as evidence. Plaintiffs “failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact whether [defendant] delivered or issued for delivery a policy after [7/1/20]. From this, it follows that MCL 500.3009(8) is necessarily inapplicable, and [defendant] was otherwise entitled to summary disposition in this declaratory action.” Reversed and remanded.