Opting out of PIP medical benefits coverage; MCL 500.3107d; Whether an insurance applicant can waive his or her spouse’s or resident relative’s coverage without their consent; A “qualified person” (MCL 500.3107d(7)(c)); MCL 500.3107d(3)(g)

The court agreed with defendant-Progressive that MCL 500.3107d only required the applicant or named insured decline PIP medical benefit coverage. Thus, it held that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff-Estrada’s wife (Esther) could not waive his “PIP medical benefits coverage without his consent[.]” Esther applied for and obtained an auto insurance policy with defendant. The policy identified her “as the ‘named insured,’ and Estrada as a resident relative.” She completed a form expressly opting “out of PIP medical benefits coverage.” Estrada was later injured in an auto accident. Defendant denied his request for PIP medical benefits. Estrada and one of his healthcare providers filed this suit. The trial court denied defendant’s summary disposition motion and granted plaintiffs’ motion. The court concluded that “Esther, as an applicant and named insured, complied with the requirements of MCL 500.3107d by endorsing a provision on Progressive’s form that indicated she opted out of her PIP benefits coverage in exchange for a lower insurance premium. By electing to opt out of these benefits, [she] endorsed that she and Estrada had qualified health coverage, and that she was aware this selection would apply to anyone covered by the policy. Thus, pursuant to the plain language of MCL 500.3107d(5), Estrada—as Esther’s spouse and resident relative—did not have PIP benefits coverage through the Progressive policy.” Plaintiffs argued on appeal “that MCL 500.3107d(3)(g) required Progressive to also provide Estrada with the means to opt out of PIP medical coverage because he was a ‘qualified person’ under the policy.” But the court determined that this was “not dispositive. Esther was an applicant and named insured on the policy with Progressive, and had qualified health coverage. Thus, she was a ‘qualified person’ under MCL 500.3107(d)(7)(c), and the form had to provide her with a way to opt out of PIP coverage, which it did. MCL 500.3107d(5) expressly provides that Esther’s election applied to Estrada as her spouse. Requiring Progressive to also provide Estrada with a way to opt out of PIP coverage would essentially render MCL 500.3107(d)(5) meaningless.” Esther validly opted out on behalf of both of them. The court reversed the orders denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiffs’ motion, vacated “the trial court’s monetary awards to plaintiffs,” and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant summary disposition.