PIP benefits; “Effective selection”; MCL 500.3107c; Distinguishing Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co; “Is”; MCL 500.3107e; Choice-of-coverage form; Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA); “Electronic signature” (MCL 450.832); MCL 450.839(1); Allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a); Michigan Department of Insurance & Financial Services (DIFS)

In this first-party case for PIP benefits, the court affirmed the trial court order granting summary disposition to defendant-Esurance. The case arose from a 5/8/22 motor vehicle crash in which plaintiffs-medical care providers’ assignor and defendant’s insured, nonparty-H, was injured. Plaintiffs first argued that there were factual disputes about whether defendant issued the renewal no-fault policy to H “before she signed an updated choice-of-coverage form.” They requested that the court “‘defer’ to DIFS’s interpretation of MCL 500.3107c.” Plaintiffs’ argument was analogous to that raised by the plaintiff in Bronson. “Here, notwithstanding that MCL 500.3107c(1) requires that, as it relates to all policies issued or renewed after [7/1/20], the insured make a selection of the limits of their PIP coverage, the statute does not specially provide that an updated form be completed at each subsequent renewal of the policy. Further, although the statute contains several criteria regarding the choice-of-coverage form, the plain language of the criteria listed in MCL 500.3107c(2)(a) through (d) does not require that a new and updated choice-of-coverage form be provided by the named insured at each subsequent renewal.” The court was “not permitted to insert into the statute a requirement that the Legislature itself did not include.” It concluded that the trial “court did not err by granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), as material factual disputes did not remain on this issue.” Plaintiffs also argued that H’s “selection was not effective under MCL 500.3107c(1) because defendant did not obtain proof of [H’s] Medicaid enrollment when her no-fault policy was renewed.” Plaintiffs pointed to DIFS Bulletin 2020-33-INS, effective 7/28/20, and DIFS Bulletin 2023-17-INS, effective 6/22/23. The court found that there was “nothing in the language of the statute mandating that insurers secure proof of Medicaid enrollment either at the time of an individual’s application or at a subsequent renewal.” The court declined “plaintiffs’ invitation to read into MCL 500.3107c” such a requirement. Thus, the trial court also did not err by granting summary disposition on this issue. Plaintiffs’ next challenge to the effectiveness of H’s “selection of limited PIP medical coverage relates to [H’s] signature on the choice-of-coverage form.” They specifically contended that “factual disputes existed regarding whether [H’s] signature on the choice-of-coverage form was valid under MCL 500.3107c and MCL 500.3107e.” At issue was whether H “made her selection under MCL 500.3107c by electronically marking the form and providing an electronic signature as provided in the UETA.” While plaintiffs relied heavily on Bronson, that case was “both procedurally and factually distinguishable.” Unlike the plaintiff in Bronson, “plaintiffs here did not assert that defendant had not produced evidence to establish that the signature of the insured was valid under MCL 500.3107e.”