Insurer priority for payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; MCL 500.3114(1) & (4); Equitable estoppel; Applicability of Rorick v State Mut Rodded Fire Ins Co of MI; Appellate jurisdiction; “Final orders”; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); Failure to rule on a motion for reconsideration; Harmless error; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

Holding that there was no merit in defendant-Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest’s equitable estoppel argument, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Citizens had priority to pay plaintiff-Melton’s claim. It also concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to rule on Citizens’ motion for reconsideration, the error was harmless. Citizens and third-party defendant-Progressive disputed which insurer had priority to pay Melton’s PIP benefits claim. Progressive issued a policy to her live-in partner (B) before the auto accident. After it denied her claim, Melton filed a claim through the MACP, which assigned it to Citizens. As an initial matter, the court concluded that Citizens’ appeal from two final orders gave it jurisdiction over the earlier grant of summary disposition to Progressive. As to the merits, it held that the trial court did not err in “granting Progressive summary disposition because Melton was neither statutorily nor contractually eligible for PIP benefits.” The policy declarations page listed her “as an additional driver, not a named insured, so she was not a person named in the policy. Further, Melton was not [B’s] spouse or relative.” There was no dispute that they were not married. B’s “policy did not apply to Melton under any of the categories in MCL 500.3114(1), and Progressive was not responsible for her claim under that statute.” Further, she was “not eligible for PIP benefits under the” policy language. Because it “did not apply to Melton and no other insurance policy applied, she was required to claim PIP benefits through the MACP under MCL 500.3114(4). The trial court properly ruled that Citizens, as the MACP’s assigned insurer, had priority to pay Melton’s claim.” The court also rejected Citizens’ argument “that Progressive should be estopped from denying PIP benefits because [it] listed Melton as eligible for PIP benefits and charged a premium for providing” her with coverage. Equitable estoppel did not apply because its representations as to coverage were not made to Melton. There was also no evidence that she “saw the declarations page or any part of” B’s policy. Further, B paid the premium, “and Melton never communicated with Progressive about the policy.”