Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; No-fault auto insurance policy cancellation; Whether the notice complied with MCL 500.3020(1)(b); Yang v Everest Nat’l Ins Co; Distinguishing Jackson v Doe (Unpub)

Holding that the auto insurance policy cancellation notice did not comply with MCL 500.3020(1)(b) and thus was ineffective, the court reversed summary disposition for defendant-insurer (CURE) and remanded. Plaintiff-insured sought PIP benefits after an auto accident. The issue on appeal was whether CURE effectively canceled his policy before the accident. It “sent the purported notice of cancellation for nonpayment on the very day” the payment was due. The court noted that in Yang, it and the Michigan “Supreme Court addressed materially similar circumstances: an insurer’s attempt to cancel a no-fault policy for nonpayment of premium by mailing a notice before the payment was past due.” Applying Yang, the 4/24/22 cancellation notice here “was ineffective as a matter of law because it was mailed before the deadline for plaintiff’s payment had passed.” The 4/5 notice CURE sent him “stated that his second installment payment was due [4/24]. When CURE sent the notice of cancellation on [4/24], plaintiff still had the remainder of that day to make a timely payment.” CURE conceded as much on appeal. Thus, the time for making the premium payment “had not yet passed when the notice was issued, and no nonpayment—the sole ground for cancellation stated in the notice—had yet occurred. Under Yang, such a notice ‘does not satisfy MCL 500.3020(1)(b).’” While CURE relied on an unpublished decision, Jackson, the notice in that case “was sent the day after nonpayment occurred, and it therefore satisfied the requirements of MCL 500.3020(1)(b).”