The No-Fault Act (NFA); MCL 500.3116(2); No-fault insurer claim against a nonmotorist tortfeasor; Citizens Ins Co v Pezzani & Reid Equip Co, Inc (On Remand); Personal protection insurance (PIP)

In a special panel opinion, the court held that MCL 500.3116 only “applies to an insurer’s right of reimbursement from a claimant and does not apply to an insurer’s tort recovery, as a subrogee, against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.” As a result, the special panel overruled the court’s 1993 decision in Pezzani. Plaintiffs were injured when a tire on another vehicle came off and struck their vehicle. They sued defendant-Family Tire, which had performed a tire rotation on the other vehicle shortly before the accident. Intervening plaintiff-Frankenmuth, their insurer, paid plaintiffs PIP benefits and moved to intervene in their negligence case. “Relying primarily on Pezzani,” the trial court granted Family Tire summary disposition of Frankenmuth’s claim. On appeal, the court in Call I affirmed the trial court because it was bound by Pezzani, but “disagreed with Pezzani and called for the convening of this special panel to determine whether Pezzani should remain binding authority.” After examining the NFA’s language, the special panel agreed “with Call I that Pezzani fails to adhere to the plain and unambiguous language of MCL 500.3116.” It noted that several decisions have determined that the statute’s language only applies “to an insured’s ability to recoup benefits from a claimant.” Despite that case law, “Pezzani applied the provision to bar the insurer plaintiff from recovering against the nonmotorist defendants.” The court noted that decision failed to “analyze the statutory language or explain why the result it reached was consistent with the language.” In Call I, the court applied “the plain, unambiguous statutory language,” and properly found that MCL 500.3116 did not apply here “because Frankenmuth does not seek reimbursement of benefits from the Calls. Rather, as the Calls’ subrogee, [it] seeks to recover from Family Tire damages under a negligence theory, and the amount of Frankenmuth’s damages is the amount of PIP benefits it paid to the Calls because of Family Tire’s alleged negligence. Because MCL 500.3116 does not preclude Frankenmuth’s claim, the trial court erred by granting Family Tire’s motion for summary disposition.” Reversed and remanded.