Interpretation of the No-Fault Act (NFA); “Medically indigent”; Hicks v Citizens Ins Co of Am; Botsford Gen Hosp v Citizens Ins Co; MCL 400.106(1)(b)(ii); Apportioning the available personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3112; MCL 500.3142; “First in, first out” (FIFO)

In these consolidated cases under the NFA, the court concluded the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff-Crane was medically indigent. It “did not err by declining to require [defendant-]Nationwide to distribute the available PIP benefits based upon which claimant first submitted a claim to Nationwide.” However, it “abused its discretion by awarding PIP benefits for future attendant care.” Plaintiffs-Michigan Head & Spine and McLaren Macomb (referred to as the providers) appealed the trial court order granting Nationwide’s “motion to interplead funds and apportioning the available funds between the providers and” Crane. They first challenged “the trial court’s finding that Crane is medically indigent.” Crane argued that Hicks and Botsford did not apply “because, at the time that they were decided, PIP benefits under the [NFA] were unlimited.” He suggested “that because there are finite benefits available and because his medical expenses for his catastrophic injuries far exceed them, he should be considered medically indigent. Yet, at the time that the providers received payment from Medicaid, Crane’s PIP benefits had not been exhausted. Indeed, the trial court ultimately ordered that a portion of the funds be paid to the providers and a portion be paid to Crane.” The trial “court would not have been able to order a distribution of PIP benefits to either Crane or the providers if such medical benefits were not available to Crane.” Thus, because he “was entitled to medical assistance ‘available through a legal obligation of a contractor, public or private,’ he did not qualify as a medically indigent person under MCL 400.106(1)(b)(ii).” The trial court erred in this regard. The providers also argued it “erred in its interpretation of and application of the” NFA. Because the statutory maximum no-fault benefits available are limited to $250,000, “and because the claims submitted to Nationwide exceed that maximum, the question is how the available funds should be dispersed.” The court held that “because MCL 500.3112 authorizes the trial court to apportion the available PIP benefits, and because MCL 500.3142 does not require payment on a FIFO basis, the trial court did not err” in this regard. But as to the award of PIP benefits for future attendant care, the NFA “does not authorize payment of PIP benefits for losses that the injured person has not yet incurred[.]” The court reversed “in part, the trial court’s order apportioning the available PIP benefits,” and remanded “for an equitable apportionment under MCL 500.3112.”