Validity of selection of less-than-unlimited personal protection insurance (PIP) new no-fault statutory mandates in MCL 500.3107c & MCL 500.3107e; Electronic signature in accordance with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA); Rebuttable presumption that the premium payment made accurately reflects a $250,000 level of coverage under MCL 500.3107c(3)

Concluding “that a document with a name typed on it does not, by itself, establish that a person electronically signed the document in accordance with the UETA,” and that this was an issue as to a rebuttable presumption under MCL 500.3107c(3), the court remanded for further discovery. The case concerned “recent changes the Legislature made as part of a collection of no-fault reform measures.” At issue was MCL 500.3107c and MCL 500.3107e. “Broadly speaking, these statutes allow insurers to sell—and applicants to buy—less-than-unlimited [PIP] coverage for automobile insurance policies, provided certain statutory requirements are satisfied.” The issue was whether the insured (nonparty-R) “validly selected less-than-unlimited PIP coverage in accordance with the new statutory mandates in MCL 500.3107c and MCL 500.3107e.” The court held that to “effectuate her $250,000 limit for PIP coverage, [R] had to mark her selection of coverage on a PIP selection form and sign the form.” Defendant-insurer alleged that she “electronically signed her PIP selection form, which is permitted by [MCL] 500.3107e(2)(c), so long as doing so complies with the” UETA. The court remanded for further discovery. Also, when R purchased her policy, “she made a premium payment. Under MCL 500.3107c(3), defendant could establish a rebuttable presumption that [R’s] policy had a $250,000 limit for PIP coverage if defendant established that the premium [R] paid corresponded to a $250,000 level of PIP coverage. To establish this rebuttable presumption, defendant provided an affidavit from one of its employees in which the employee averred that the premium [R] paid corresponded with a $250,000 limit for PIP coverage.” However, it “did not include this employee on its witness list, and did not submit the employee’s affidavit until two days before the trial court was to consider the parties’ competing motions for summary disposition. Given this, and because the employee’s affidavit is the only evidence establishing that the premium [R] paid corresponded to a $250,000 limit for PIP coverage, we agree with plaintiff that plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on this issue.” Vacated and remanded.