Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Limit on insurer liability as to out-of-state residents; MCL 500.3163; Reformation; MCL 500.3012; Farm Bureau Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-insurer’s (Geico) motion for summary disposition and granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary disposition as to liability. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries and was rendered a quadriplegic when her husband (Waller) fell asleep, lost control of his vehicle, drove into a ditch, and struck two trees. After the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, the parties stipulated that her damages were $1,200,000, and it entered a final judgment to that effect. On appeal, the court found the trial court did not err by finding “there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Geico’s knowledge that Waller was a Michigan resident at the time it issued its automobile insurance policy.” The evidence showed “Geico was aware when it issued the policy that Waller had a valid Michigan driver’s license, and Waller listed a Michigan address on the face of the policy. Geico was also aware that Waller was present in North Carolina because he was stationed in the military. The declarations page of Geico’s policy noted that Waller’s vehicles would be garaged in North Carolina at a military base.” In addition, Geico failed to identify “any additional evidence produced on remand that establishe[d] a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether [it] was unaware of Waller’s Michigan residency when it issued its policy.” Geico also did “not dispute that plaintiff, as Waller’s spouse, qualifie[d] as an insured under Waller’s policy.” Lastly, the court declined Geico’s invitation to declare a conflict with Farm Bureau. “In sum, the trial court did not err by ruling that reformation of Geico’s policy under MCL 500.3012 to include mandatory coverage for Michigan PIP benefits was appropriate, because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Geico knew, or should have known, that Waller was a Michigan resident when it issued the policy. Contrary to Geico’s argument, it was not necessary for plaintiff to additionally demonstrate that Geico issued the policy as one purporting to be compliant with Michigan law.” Affirmed.