Policy cancellation notice requirement under MCL 500.3020(1)(b); Nowell v Titan Ins Co; Assigned-claims ineligibility when applicable PIP exists; MCL 500.3114(1); MCL 500.3172(1)(a); Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v Michigan Assigned Claims Plan

Holding that defendant-insurer’s (USAU) cancellation notice did not satisfy MCL 500.3020(1)(b), leaving its policy in force and making it the priority PIP insurer, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary disposition for defendant-Allstate. Plaintiff-Thompson was insured by USAU under a no-fault policy that required installment payments. She missed her first payment, and USAU mailed a cancellation notice on 12/9/22, setting a 12/19/22 cancellation date. She was injured in a 1/5/23 motor vehicle accident. She applied to the MAIPF, and the MACP assigned the claim to Allstate. The trial court granted USAU summary disposition and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against it, reasoning that although the notice was not within ten days “as prescribed,” it was sent within a reasonable period before the accident. On appeal, the court rejected USAU’s position and applied Nowell to MCL 500.3020(1)(b), explaining that because the notice was mailed exactly ten days before the purported cancellation date and mailed from California to Michigan, it was not mailed “so as to reasonably ensure that the notice would arrive at Thompson’s residence and provide Thompson with the potential to have 10 days’ notice of the cancellation,” and therefore “the notice did not comply with MCL 500.3020(1)(b).” The court held that “because the notice of cancellation was not effective in this case, Thompson’s USAU insurance policy was in effect at the time of the motor vehicle accident, and Thompson must seek PIP benefits from USAU,” and further that “a person injured in a motor vehicle accident cannot seek PIP benefits through the assigned claims plan if there is a personal protection insurance policy that is applicable to the injury.”