Action for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act; Opt out of PIP coverage; MCL 500.3107d; “Qualified person”; Claim against the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility & Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (collectively, the MAIPF); MCL 500.3172(1); Existence of an applicable insurance policy; MCL 500.3114(1) & (4)

Concluding that there was no evidence the insured (nonparty-A) opted out of PIP coverage for allowable expenses under his policy with defendant-Integon, the court held that the trial court erred in granting Integon summary disposition. But it found that the trial court properly granted defendants-MAIPF summary disposition. Plaintiff-medical provider sued for PIP benefits for treatment provided to A’s grandson (J) after an auto accident. Integon quoted A “over the phone and presented him with the option to opt out of PIP medical coverage for allowable expenses in exchange for reducing his premiums. This phone call was recorded and a transcript of the call was produced during discovery. During the recorded phone call, [A] briefly discussed opting out of PIP medical coverage because of his Medicare coverage, but he did not request to opt out of PIP coverage for allowable expenses at that time.” He signed an opt out form on 6/29/20 for the policy period starting 7/3/20, but the policy period at issue here was from 1/3/21 to 7/3/21, because the accident occurred on 3/5/21. “Even if the phone call had occurred around the time of the 2021 policy period, it would not create a question of fact on the issue of a PIP opt out because (1) [A] did not instruct the salesperson to sign the form on his behalf as stated in MCL 500.3107e(2)(b) and (2) [A] did not agree to purchase insurance during the call; rather, he discussed insurance options (including uninsured motorist coverage, liability, and PIP coverage) and told the salesperson that he would call back because he was about to receive a phone call from his granddaughter. The record contains no opt-out form for the 2021 policy period, and MCL 500.3107d contemplates that the requisite opt-out form will be completed at the time that a policy is originated and for renewals thereafter.” Thus, the court reversed the order granting Integon summary disposition and remanded. It affirmed summary disposition for MAIPF because applicable PIP coverage for J’s injuries existed through Integon’s policy and thus, he “was not entitled to benefits through the MAIPF.”