The No-Fault Act; Healthcare provider action for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; The one-year-back rule (MCL 500.3145); Claims assignment; Applicability of the misnomer doctrine; Motion for a directed verdict

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court vacated as premature the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 83484 in the 4/22/25 edition) and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. It directed that court to address: (1) whether “defendants created the one-year-back argument through false answers to requests for admissions; (2) whether the insureds assigned their claims to” plaintiff-healthcare provider “in a consolidated action against both of the defendants; (3) whether the misnomer doctrine should apply; and (4) whether the directed verdict motion was procedurally improper and unsupported by evidence.”