No-fault insurance; PIP benefits; Allowable expenses; Policy rescission; Innocent third parties; Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co; Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Wright; Coverage limits; Declaratory judgment; Preservation; Raise-or-waive rule; Consolidated cases

The court held that plaintiff-Progressive could not obtain appellate relief in this case by challenging an order entered in a separate action with which this case was not consolidated. Progressive filed this declaratory action after an accident involving its insured’s vehicle and a three-wheeled motorcycle insured by defendant-Esurance, seeking rescission based on alleged misrepresentations by its insured. The trial court granted Esurance summary disposition, ruling Progressive was first in priority for PIP benefits. Progressive appealed, arguing the trial court erred by treating allowable-expense coverage as unlimited. On appeal, the court first held that the coverage-limit issue was not preserved in this action because Progressive’s complaint sought rescission and no coverage, but contained “no allegations that PIP coverage is limited to $250,000” and no request for a declaration imposing that cap. Thus, the issue was “never before the lower court in the declaratory action.” The court next held that, even if preserved, Progressive still was not entitled to relief because the trial court never entered an order in this case holding allowable-expense coverage was unlimited. The court reasoned that “‘a court speaks through its written orders and judgments,’” and the unlimited-coverage order was entered only in the separate case. Because the court could not find error in the present case “on the basis of an order that was entered in a separate matter that was not consolidated with this case,” Progressive’s appeal failed. Affirmed.