No-fault coverage; Policy interpretation; “Ward”; Hartman v Insurance Co of N Am; Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF)

The court held that plaintiff-State Farm failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that the injured person (KL) was not its insured's (M) “ward” under its policy, so defendant Nationwide was entitled to summary disposition. The dispute arose from a 2020 hit-and-run in which 15-year-old KL, who lived with her mother, M, and her half-siblings, was seriously injured as a pedestrian. After State Farm denied PIP coverage under M’s policy, the claim was assigned through the MAIPF to Nationwide, and State Farm later sought reimbursement from Nationwide after paying benefits in related litigation. The central issue was whether KL qualified as a covered “resident relative” under M’s policy as “a ward.” On appeal, the court held that the policy term “ward” was not limited to a formal court-appointed relationship and instead carried its plain and ordinary meaning, which could include a person under another’s protection and tutelage. The court next held that Nationwide satisfied its initial burden under MCR 2.116(C)(10) by submitting M’s affidavit stating that KL had lived with him since age nine, that he treated her like a daughter, provided her care and protection “as a father would,” contributed at least 25% of her food, clothing, and shelter, and performed parental tasks such as school transportation, discipline, and picking up prescriptions. The court further held that State Farm failed to rebut this evidence with documentary proof creating a material factual dispute and instead relied only on its unsuccessful legal argument that “ward” required a court-sanctioned relationship. Because State Farm left Nationwide’s evidence effectively unrebutted, summary disposition for Nationwide was required. Reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of Nationwide.