Opt-out of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage; MCL 500.3107c & 3107d; “Qualified health coverage” (QHC); MCL 500.3107e(2) & (3); Validity of electronic signatures on the PIP opt-out form; The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA); MCL 450.832(h) & 450.839; “Security procedure” (MCL 450.832(n)); MCL 450.837; Payment of a monthly premium reflecting the absence of PIP coverage; Effect of an affidavit; Effect of failing to timely submit proof of QHC; Michigan Department of Insurance & Financial Services Bulletin 2021-25-INS

The court held that defendant-Progressive Michigan’s insured (Michael) “properly opted out of PIP coverage for allowable expenses and thus,” his wife (plaintiff-Tiffany) was not entitled to coverage under the policy. His “electronic signatures were valid, [he] received the benefit of his bargain by paying lower premium payments, and his affidavit failed to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s order denying Progressive’s summary disposition motion and remanded. Tiffany asserted “Progressive failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the validity of Michael’s electronic signatures on the PIP selection form.” But the court agreed with Progressive that his “signatures on the opt-out form were valid.” It noted that Michael “used a third-party software, DocuSign, and included his initials and full name throughout the” insurance application. This is also an electronic signature as contemplated by the UETA. Under the terms of the application, he “acknowledged that his electronic signature had the same legal effect as his written signature on a paper version of the document” and that it was “valid evidence of his intent to enter an agreement with Progressive and” legally binding. The court concluded his “signatures and initials on the opt-out form complied with the UETA.” It noted that the “DocuSign secured-signature software Progressive and Michael used provides time stamps indicating when [he] was sent the application, when he viewed it, and when he signed it. It also indicates the security level used as ‘Email, Account Authentication.’ [His] DocuSign signature appears four times and his initials appear five times on the application and PIP-selection form, confirming his choices to opt-out of PIP coverage.” His lower premium payments were further evidence of the validity of the e-signed contract. Finally, the court concluded that his affidavit did not create a question of fact. Summary disposition could not be avoided by his conclusory denial “contrary to Michael’s historical conduct and signed documentary evidence in the form of his repeated signatures and initials throughout the insurance documents.” Finally, as to the effect of Progressive’s “failure to timely verify” his QHC, the court declined “to invalidate an otherwise valid opt-out because of a four-month delay in obtaining QHC that was valid at the policy inception and all relevant times thereafter.”