The No-Fault Act (NFA); Request for interest & attorney fees; VHS of MI, Inc v Michigan Auto Ins Placement Facility; Personal protection insurance (PIP)

Concluding that the outcome here was governed by its decision in VHS, the court held that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff-Colon’s summary disposition motion as to his request for interest and attorney fees in this action under the NFA. While this appeal was “the first in this particular case, the underlying facts and proceedings” were not new to the court. It “detailed the relevant factual and procedural background” in VHS. In 2021, “Colon was severely injured in a motor vehicle collision after his motorcycle collided with another vehicle, which was owned by” nonparty-L. Colon “received extensive medical care from VHS of Michigan, Inc., to treat his injuries.” In separate cases, he “and VHS each filed a complaint seeking” PIP benefits from defendant-Falls Lake, L’s insurer, for those services. While “the appeal in this case was pending,” the court issued “its decision in VHS, holding that the trial court erred by denying VHS’s motion for summary disposition concerning its request for interest and attorney fees.” The court noted the “order that Colon challenges on appeal—the trial court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition concerning his request for interest and attorney fees—is the same order that VHS challenged, and on the same grounds. This Court squarely addressed and decided those challenges in VHS, concluding that Falls Lake could not use the rescission of [L’s] policy to escape liability for penalty interest under MCL 500.3142(2) and attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). VHS is precedentially binding,” and the court saw “no reason why it would not control” its disposition of this case. It reversed the trial court’s order denying Colon’s motion and remanded.