No-fault PIP benefits; Exhaustion of allowable expense benefits; Whether an insurer is required to seek a court order under MCL 500.3112; ; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

Holding that defendant-Allstate’s position lacked evidentiary support, the court concluded that the trial court erred by granting it summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and reversed. But it disagreed with plaintiff-Phase One “that Allstate was required to seek a court order under MCL 500.3112 before paying other entities” and affirmed the trial court on this issue. Nonparty-R was injured in an auto collision. Allstate was assigned her claim under the MACP. Phase One provided her with medical services. It argued that Allstate (1) did not present sufficient “evidence to establish an exhaustion of allowable expense benefits” and (2) could not discharge its liability because it did not “seek circuit court approval under MCL 500.3112 before issuing payment to other entities.” The court found that despite “Allstate’s failure to meet its initial burden,” the trial court granted it summary disposition, finding that R “resolved her PIP action with Allstate through facilitation and, [f]rom [9/22] through [3/23], as required by the facilitation agreement, Allstate paid claims to [R’s] providers. The amount total it paid was $250,000, the statutory maximum required by MACP-assigned insurers.’” It further found applying MCL 500.3112 “to preclude Phase One from receiving PIP benefits is consistent with both the plain language of [MCL 500.3172(7)(a)], as it maintains the $250,000 cap in benefits mandated by that section, and the purpose of section 3112[.]” But these conclusions were unsupported by the record. There was no record evidence as to “the settlement amount, the terms of the facilitation agreement, the terms of the release, the identity of the providers or payees associated with the payments reflected in the payment log, or whether all the payments in the log were made under the terms of the facilitation agreement.” The court found that recognizing “the record deficiency, Allstate has attempted to inappropriately expand the record on appeal.” But its arguments confirmed “that the trial court’s conclusion was based on erroneous factual findings that were unsupported by any documentary evidence.” However, the court rejected Phase One’s argument that Allstate had to seek a court order before paying other entities, as opposed to Phase One. The court held that “the trial court appropriately concluded that an insurer is not required to seek court approval before paying no-fault benefits.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.