Jurisdiction over appeal; Auto negligence; No-fault benefits; Assignment; Standing; MCL 500.3112; Real party in interest; MCL 600.2041; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; Wallace v Suburban Mobility Auth for Reg'l Transp; Leave to amend; Relation back; Rescission

The court vacated the trial court’s 5/16/23 order granting defendant-Progressive’s motion for summary disposition and remanded. Plaintiff sued defendant for no-fault benefits after a 9/1/19 auto accident. As a preliminary matter, the court noted it had jurisdiction over this appeal. A previous order “expressly states that it reserves plaintiff’s right to appeal the limited issue regarding” an earlier “order granting Progressive’s summary disposition motion and dismissing” two other parties. Turning to the merits, the trial court “granted summary disposition to Progressive because plaintiff was not the real party in interest as a result of the assignments she executed and thus had no right to prosecute this action for recovery of the benefits she assigned.” It also “ruled that the revocations were ‘too late’ because plaintiff was not the real party in interest ‘at the time of filing.’” Finally, it “concluded that ‘no supplemental pleadings have been filed in this case and any additional claims [p]laintiff would wish to make would be barred by the one year back rule MCL 500.3145.’” The court held that under “C-Spine, the legal framework employed by the trial court in the present case” was erroneous, so it reversed its ruling granting Progressive’s motion for summary disposition. In addition, because the trial court “did not engage in a rescission analysis, . . . the matter must be remanded to the trial court for it to consider in the first instance whether equitable rescission should apply and any further implications of that determination.” And because “the trial court’s ruling that the one-year-back rule would have still barred plaintiff’s claims was also based on the trial court’s incorrect understanding regarding the effect of a valid mutual rescission, that ruling is also vacated so the trial court may reconsider that ruling under the proper legal framework.” Finally, the court noted that plaintiff did “not appear to claim to have complied with” the applicable “procedural requirements and the remedy of legal rescission is not at issue at this juncture.”