No-fault insurance; PIP priority; MCL 500.3114(5); Exclusion from priority; MCL 500.3114(6); Love v Allstate Prop & Cas Ins Co; Mary Free Bed Rehab Hosp v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co; Mend-the-hold doctrine; Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of MI; Contract interpretation; Policy incorporation by reference; Whittlesey v Herbrand Co

The court held that plaintiff-Meemic remained first in priority for PIP benefits because it was not removed from the priority scheme under MCL 500.3114(6), and its policy provided $250,000 in PIP coverage for the injured motorcyclist and passenger. After a collision between a motor vehicle and a motorcycle, Meemic (the insurer of the motor vehicle) paid about $150,356.03 in PIP benefits to the motorcycle operator and passenger, then sought reimbursement from defendant-Auto-Owners (whose policy covered the motorcyclist and passenger), arguing that Auto-Owners was first in priority. The district court agreed with Meemic, but the circuit court reversed. On appeal, the court held that the mend-the-hold doctrine did not bar Auto-Owners’ position because that doctrine is meant “‘to prevent an insurance company from misleading an insured about the reasons for denying coverage under the terms of a policy,’” and this dispute was between two insurers, not between an insurer and an insured. The court next held that Love controlled because the dispositive facts were identical, and under MCL 500.3114(6) an insurer is removed from priority only if PIP medical coverage is absent through either the opt-out provision in MCL 500.3107d or the exclusions in MCL 500.3109a(2). Neither applied here because Meemic’s insured selected Option 4, not the no-PIP option, and the injured motorcyclist and passenger were not persons eligible for exclusion under the statute. The court also held that the PIP selection form was incorporated into the policy because the declarations referred the insured to it “for a summary of coverages,” and the form expressly provided $250,000 in PIP allowable-expense coverage for anyone not excluded. Any ambiguity created by the absence of a listed premium had to be construed in favor of coverage. Affirmed.