Personal injury protection (PIP) benefits; Opt out; MCL 500.3107d(1); Uninsured & underinsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM) benefits; Rescission based on a misrepresentation; Howard v LM Gen Ins Co

Holding that “there was no PIP medical coverage under the policy,” and that the trial court did not err in ruling that defendant-USAU was not responsible for paying UM/UIM medical benefits, the court affirmed summary disposition for USAU. Plaintiff’s husband (K) applied for a USAU auto policy. Plaintiff was later “involved in a hit and run accident” and a claim for benefits was made. USAU rescinded the policy on the ground that, during “its investigation, it was discovered that the policy-application contained material misrepresentations.” Plaintiff then filed this action seeking payment of benefits. As to the claim for PIP benefits, under “MCL 500.3107d(1), drivers may opt out of PIP medical coverage if they have ‘qualified health coverage.’ In this case, [K] chose to do just that by explicitly opting out of PIP medical benefits on the policy application. Accordingly, there was no PIP medical coverage under the policy, and the trial court did not err by determining that USAU was not responsible for” paying these benefits. As to the claim for UM/UIM benefits, there was “no dispute that in the policy-application, [K] represented that in the past three years, neither he nor any of his rated household members had their driver’s licenses suspended or revoked. There is also no dispute that USAU later learned that both plaintiff’s and [K’s] drivers’ licenses were suspended within 3 years before the application date.” While plaintiff asserted that K “did not knowingly or intentionally make a misrepresentation” the court noted the contract’s plain terms “do not state that the misrepresentation must be intentional in order for the policy to be voided—it merely states that ‘any material misrepresentation will void coverage,’ and ‘[n]o coverage is provided and the policy shall be null and void from inception . . . [i]f any information in this application is false or misleading.’” And an affidavit from USAU’s underwriting representative stated that had K “answered the question in the affirmative, ‘the policy would not have been issued.’ Because USAU relied on the misrepresentation when determining eligibility for coverage, the misrepresentation was material.”