No-fault insurance; Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Priority; Resident relative; MCL 500.3114(1); Domicile; Grange Ins Co of MI v Lawrence; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP); MCL 500.3172(1)(a) & (b); Insurer of last resort; Bronner v City of Detroit; Due diligence; Griffin v Trumbull Ins Co; Policy rescission; Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co

The court held that plaintiff was not eligible for MACP benefits because a higher-priority Progressive policy applied to her as a resident relative of the named insured. Plaintiff was injured while driving her sister’s vehicle, sought benefits under the sister’s Progressive policy, and later applied to the MACP after Progressive sought additional information and allegedly denied the claim. Defendant was assigned the MACP claim and denied services because Progressive was a higher-priority insurer. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition. On appeal, the court held that defendant presented documentary evidence showing plaintiff and her sister lived at the same address, plaintiff admitted she was domiciled with her sister, and her resident-relative status was “not contested.” The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that she was entitled to MACP benefits because Progressive did not actually provide coverage. MCL 500.3114 requires only that the policy “applies” to a domiciled relative, and defendant did not have to prove Progressive would accept the claim or that benefits were received. The court also noted that Progressive had not rescinded the policy, the unsigned voicemail transcript did not create a material factual issue, and any dispute over the incorrect policy address was between plaintiff and Progressive. Affirmed.