Motorcycle priority; MCL 500.3114(5); Unlimited PIP after exhaustion; Mary Free Bed Rehab Hosp v Esurance; No-Fault Act reform limits; MCL 500.3107c
The court held that, after the highest-priority insurer’s $50,000 PIP medical limit was exhausted, plaintiff could “move down the priority list” under MCL 500.3114(5) and seek additional PIP medical benefits from his own lower-priority policy that provided unlimited coverage. Plaintiff was catastrophically injured while operating a motorcycle and colliding with a motor vehicle, resulting in a below-the-knee amputation and more than $50,000 in medical expenses. The motor-vehicle owner’s insurer, MemberSelect, was undisputedly “the highest-priority insurer” under MCL 500.3114(5)(a) and carried only $50,000 in PIP medical-benefits coverage, which was exhausted. Plaintiff stipulated to dismissing MemberSelect after exhaustion, then pursued benefits under his Allstate motor-vehicle policy that included unlimited PIP medical coverage. The trial court granted Allstate summary disposition, accepting the argument that a lower-priority insurer has no liability once a higher-priority insurer has paid to its limit. On appeal, the court emphasized MCL 500.3114(5)’s directive that an injured motorcyclist “shall claim” benefits from insurers “in the following order of priority,” and it relied on the court’s then-recent published analysis in Mary Free Bed Rehab Hosp, which recognized that, after the 2019 reforms allowing capped coverage, “there may be circumstances in which the benefits sought exceed the first-in-priority insurer’s policy limits.” Quoting that decision, the panel held that “the plain language of MCL 500.3114(5) allows an injured motorcyclist . . . to recover from such lower-priority insurers once coverage by a higher-priority insurer is exhausted,” and that denying access to a claimant’s own unlimited policy “runs counter to the spirit of the no-fault act and its 2019 amendments.” Because Allstate was next in the statutory order once the higher-priority limit was exhausted, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition. Reversed and remanded.
Full PDF Opinion