Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Northland Radiology, Inc v Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co; MCL 500.3107d(4)

The court vacated both the circuit court’s order on appeal and the district court’s order denying defendant-Liberty Mutual’s summary disposition motion, and remanded. Nonparty-F, who is insured with Liberty Mutual, was in a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff-M1 asserted that, as the assignee of a no-fault insurance policy, it was entitled to PIP benefits from Liberty Mutual for services provided to F. The court found that it “seems apparent that Liberty Mutual initially failed to present sufficient factual evidence to support its motion for summary disposition, as evidenced by [its] late-included PIP Selection Form on reconsideration, and its effort to expand the record on appeal to the circuit court.” It noted “that there are some circumstances in which the trial court should explicitly indicate that it is denying a motion for summary disposition without prejudice and permit additional discovery to occur.” This case presented such a situation. “Further, while this appeal was pending, a different panel of this Court rendered an opinion,” Northland, holding that, “unless the applicant or named insured provides proof of status as a ‘qualified person’ by having ‘health coverage under parts A and B of Medicare,’ and also provides proof of ‘the applicant’s or named insured’s spouse[’s] and resident relatives[’]” qualified health coverage, the ‘applicant or named insured fails to make an effective election’ to opt out of PIP coverage.” In addition, “MCL 500.3107d(4) states that the policy is considered to provide unlimited PIP medical coverage[.]” The court noted that at “the time of Liberty Mutual’s motion, the record before the trial court was incomplete as to whether [F] had opted out of PIP coverage.” Further, it found that “although the district court correctly denied Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary disposition for lack of supporting evidence, it nonetheless determined that the denial letter and the insurance premium reductions ‘evidenced that PIP coverage was coordinated, not excluded.’” The court found “no evidence in the record to support that conclusion, but we shall leave it to the district court to reexamine the record on remand after further discovery if the parties dispute that matter.”