PIP opt out; Effective election under § 3107d; MCL 500.3107d; Love v Rudolph; No-fault coverage; Unlimited PIP medical benefits; MCL 500.3107c(1)(d); Statutory interpretation; Plain language; Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP v City of Detroit

The court held that the insured (Springer) did not make an effective election to opt out of PIP medical coverage under MCL 500.3107d because all statutory criteria were not met, so absent any other valid defenses the defendant-Allstate policy must be treated as providing unlimited PIP medical coverage. Springer’s son (Turner) was injured in an automobile accident while living with Springer, who had renewed her Allstate no-fault policy after 7/1/20 and selected “Option 6” to opt out of PIP medical coverage in exchange for a 100% premium reduction. Although Springer had Medicare Parts A and B and thus qualified personally to elect the opt out, her resident relative Turner did not have “qualified health coverage” because his purported coverage was Medicaid, which the statute and Allstate’s form expressly excluded. The court held that the plain language of MCL 500.3107d requires that all statutory conditions be satisfied for an effective opt out, including that resident relatives have the required coverage and that documentation be provided for all covered persons. The court rejected arguments that Turner himself had to be a “qualified person” or separately execute the opt-out form, but it concluded that the election still failed because Turner lacked the required other coverage and Springer did not provide proof of qualifying coverage for him. The court further held that under MCL 500.3107d(4), when an effective opt out is not made, the policy is considered to provide unlimited PIP medical benefits under MCL 500.3107c(1)(d), and that result applies to the policy as a whole, not just to selected individuals. Reversed and remanded.