PIP benefits under the No-Fault Act; Due diligence to identify insurer; Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co; Stanley v Detroit; Statute of limitations; MCL 500.3145(1); Priority; MCL 500.3114; Benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP); MCL 500.3172(1); Duty to pay benefits

The court concluded that (1) plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to identify defendants/appellees-Knight and Progressive and notify them of his claims, (2) he could not maintain a claim against defendant/appellee-Citizens as the assigned MACP insurer, and (3) the court did not “agree with plaintiff that Citizens was required to pay within 30 days of being presented with” his proofs. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for these defendants. The case involved the interplay between “the limitations period for claims against insurers, MCL 500.3145(1); the conditions under which a person may seek benefits through the MACP, MCL 500.3172(1); and the order of priority in which one must pursue a claim, MCL 500.3114.” The court held that plaintiff’s direct claims against Knight and Progressive were “barred by the statute of limitations because they did not have notice of his injuries or claims within one year after the accident as required by MCL 500.3145(1). Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary disposition as to the claims plaintiff asserted directly against them in his amended complaint.” As to the claims under the MACP, he argued “that subsections (b) and (c) support his claims.” Regarding subsection (b), the court disagreed “with plaintiff that no PIP coverage applicable to the injury could be identified. Although plaintiff did not actually identify Knight or Progressive before the statute of limitations expired, they were identifiable.” Applying Griffin and Stanley in this case, the court concluded that he “did not exercise due diligence in attempting to identify them and notify them of his claims.” Plaintiff argued “that he was misled into thinking that [defendant-]Great American provided coverage because proof of insurance from Great American was in the truck’s glove compartment at the time of the accident. However, the ‘onus’ is on the claimant to exercise due diligence in identifying the highest-priority insurer,” and there was no evidence that he “made any inquiries until [1/16/21], to verify whether Great American provided coverage.” Plaintiff also contended “that it would have been impossible for him to learn about Knight’s coverage.” However, he had not contested defendants’ representation to the contrary “in the trial court or on appeal.” Thus, he could not “proceed against Citizens under MCL 500.3172(1)(b).” The court concluded that even if Progressive was “the higher-priority insurer, plaintiff’s lack of due diligence to identify and file a claim with Progressive dooms his claim against Citizens.” As to subsection (c), the court did “not agree that a claim can be sustained under MCL 500.3172(1)(c) by what is essentially a contingent priority dispute between two potential insurers when the claimant did not exercise due diligence in the first place to timely notify either one.”