No-Fault Act (NFA); Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Effective selection of limited coverage; MCL 500.3107c(1); Rebuttable presumption under MCL 500.3107c(3); Distinguishing Bronson Healthcare Group, Inc v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Group; Coverage limit; Whether the NFA prohibits claiming PIP medical benefits after policy coverage was exhausted; MCL 500.3114(5)

Addressing an issue of first impression as to whether a motorcyclist “or their treatment provider, once their [PIP] expenses exhaust and exceed a $250,000 coverage limit in the policy of a higher-priority insurer, may move down the priority list and claim additional benefits from a lower-priority insurer that provides unlimited coverage[,]” the court held that the answer is yes. It agreed with the trial court that defendant-Esurance’s policy was capped at $250,000 because, although the named insured (T) did not make an “effective selection” under MCL 500.3107c(1), Esurance was entitled to the rebuttable presumption under MCL 500.3107c(3) and the record showed the $250,000 limit had been exhausted. Under the NFA, “a motorcyclist injured in a motor vehicle accident must claim [PIP] medical benefits from insurers in a specified order of priority, and the insurers of the owner, registrant, or operator of the motor vehicle involved in the accident are higher in priority than the motor vehicle insurers of the owner, registrant, or operator of the motorcycle.” Plaintiff first argued that T “failed to make an ‘effective selection’ of coverage limited to $250,000 under MCL 500.3107c(1) and MCL 500.3107e.” The court concluded that as “Esurance presented no other evidence besides ‘merely offer[ing] a document with an electronically printed name and date,’ it did not demonstrate that the coverage selection was effective.” It found that given “that there was no effective selection under MCL 500.3107c(1),” the issue was whether Esurance was “entitled to the presumption under MCL 500.3107c(3).” It was. The court found that “unlike the plaintiff in Bronson, plaintiff was not prejudiced.” It noted that “Esurance established that its policy limit was $250,000.” And plaintiff did “not dispute that Esurance paid benefits to the policy limit.” Thus, the “trial court was correct to enter summary disposition in favor of Esurance.” Finally, the court turned “to whether plaintiff may also recover PIP benefits from the unlimited policy issued by [defendant-]USAA, the lower-priority insurer.” Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by ruling that the NFA “prohibits it from claiming PIP medical benefits from USAA after Esurance’s policy coverage was exhausted.” The court found that “MCL 500.3114(5) and the other provisions of the [NFA] allow plaintiff to recover PIP payments from USAA after Esurance’s policy coverage has been exhausted. The trial court [thus] erred by granting summary disposition to USAA.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.