Personal injury protection (PIP) benefits; Coverage dispute; Termination of insurance; MCL 500.2123; Policy cancellation; MCL 500.3020; “Notice of cancellation”; Yang v Everest Nat’l Ins Co; Reliance on logs contained in the underwriting file; MCR 2.313(C)(1) & 2.302(A)(1)(d)

Holding that there was “no material factual dispute that the policy was cancelled by” defendant-Progressive before the accident in question and that “there was no coverage at the time of the accident,” the court affirmed summary disposition for Progressive in this coverage dispute. Plaintiffs-medical providers sought PIP benefits for services provided to a nonparty (W) who was involved in an auto accident. W obtained the policy at issue before the accident. She “paid her first and second monthly premiums using a debit card, which she had saved to her online account. The next premium owed was declined” because her “bank account ‘declined her automatic credit card premium payment.’ [W] testified she was not aware” it was declined. The court found no merit in plaintiffs’ assertion “there was no admissible evidence supporting the proof of mailing for the” ensuing cancellation notice. “Progressive offered a copy of the cancellation notice, which listed a ‘[d]ate of [m]ailing’ as [6/9/23]. The cancellation notice stated, ‘we didn’t receive your payment and, as a result, your policy will be [cancelled] at 12:01 a.m. on [6/22/23].’ To avoid cancellation, [W] was required to pay the $217.36 premium by [6/22/23]. Further, the record included customer interaction history logs and a transaction history log. The customer interaction history log reflected a notice of nonpayment was sent by USPS to” W on 6/8/23. A representative for Progressive (C) “averred the cancellation notice was sent on [6/9/23], that [W] did not timely pay the premium, and that the policy was cancelled at 12:01 a.m. on [6/22/23]. The transaction history log indicates a ‘[f]inal [c]ancel’ was entered on [6/23/23]. The accident occurred on” 7/6/23. It was reinstated eight days later after W paid her premium and “electronically signed a statement of no loss” that included a condition that if the policy was “‘reinstated, Progressive will not cover any accidents or damages between’” 6/22/23 and the date and time W signed the document. The court concluded that viewing W’s “testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it” did not establish a genuine issue of material fact whether cancellation notice was mailed. Her “assertion that she never received the mailing did not rebut the proof of mailing itself. Any contention that [W’s] testimony supports that the mail was not sent is mere speculation.”