A man who sought PIP benefits for an out-of-state auto accident was not eligible to claim benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, or MACP, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held on remand.
The appeals court first ruled in a 2022 published decision that, since the accident didn’t happen in Michigan, the plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits and the defendants the MACP and the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, or MAIPF were entitled to summary disposition.
The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the decision, and remanded for reconsideration to “address the impact, if any, of MCL 500.3114 on whether the plaintiff is eligible to claim benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan.”
On remand, the appeals court again reversed.
“Having considered the instruction from our Supreme Court, we conclude that MCL 500.3114 does not impact [plaintiff’s] eligibility to claim benefits through the MACP,” Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett wrote. “We reaffirm that MCL 500.3172(1) controls the outcome in this case and requires an individual claiming PIP benefits through the MACP to show that the accident giving rise to the claim occurred in Michigan. [Plaintiff’s] injuries arose from an out-of-state accident, so he is ineligible to claim PIP benefits through the MACP.”
The case is Steanhouse v. MAIPF ( MiLW 07-107891 , 9 pages). Judges Mark J. Cavanagh and Kirsten Frank Kelly joined Garrett’s opinion.
Preston M. Denha of Kajy Law Firm in Southfield represented Steanhouse and John D. Ruth of Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle in Bloomfield Hills represented the defendants. Neither responded to request for comment.
Ohio accident
In November 2019, Markise Steanhouse was injured in an auto accident in Ohio. He applied for personal protection insurance, or PIP, benefits through the MACP in September 2020.
Steanhouse filed suit against the MACP and the MAIPF, after they refused to assign an insurer to pay him PIP benefits.
Both MACP and MAIPF moved for summary disposition. To claim PIP benefits through the MACP under MCL 500.3172(1), the accident that gave rise to the claim must have happened in Michigan, they contended. Since there were no genuine fact issues that Steanhouse’s accident happened in Ohio, he was not entitled to get PIP benefits through the MACP.
In his response, Steanhouse disputed the defendants’ interpretation of MCL 500.3172(1). He claimed he was entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111 because he was in an auto accident that happened in the United States; he was an occupant of a vehicle and was injured; and he was a Michigan resident.
He added that MCL 500.3113 which specifies who isn’t entitled to PIP benefits makes no mention of out-of-state accidents that involve in-state residents.
The defendants maintained that MCL 500.3172, rather than MCL 500.3111, applied here because it specifically pertains to the MACP and the MAIPF.
The Wayne Circuit Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary disposition, saying, “MCL 500.3172 conflicts with MCL 500.3111 and otherwise cannot be interpreted as depriving assigned coverage to Michigan residents simply because they were injured in accidents in other states.”
The trial court also denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration, explaining that it “does not believe that otherwise uninsured Michigan residents lose their right to coverage through MAIPF when they are injured in an accident that occurs in another state.”
First appeal vacated
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the ruling from the Wayne Circuit Court in a December 2022 published decision ( MiLW 07-106247 ), finding that summary disposition should have been awarded to MACP and MAIPF.
“We hold that MCL 500.3172, which governs eligibility for claims brought through the MACP, requires a claimant to establish that the accident occurred in Michigan,” Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett wrote. “Because the accident at issue occurred in Ohio, defendants were entitled to summary disposition.”
The matter then made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave, the justices vacated the appellate court ruling .
On remand, the appeals court was directed to address the impact, if any, of MCL 500.3114 on whether Steanhouse was eligible to claim benefits through the MACP.
Remand
Prior to the 2019 no-fault amendments, MCL 500.3111 said benefits were payable to “an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy .”
The statute now makes PIP benefits payable for injuries suffered in an out-of-state accident if “an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident” was a Michigan resident, without regard to an applicable policy.
“Thus, looking at MCL 500.3111 alone, PIP benefits ‘are payable’ to Steanhouse because he is a Michigan resident who was injured while an occupant of a vehicle involved in an out-of-state accident,” Garrett noted.
But the judge said that doesn’t end the inquiry. She looked to MCL 500.3114, which defines “against whom an individual may make a claim for benefits.”
Amendments to that statute provide three layers of priority, the MACP being the last. Steanhouse claimed he is eligible for PIP benefits through the MACP because they are payable to him under MCL 500.3111 and because MCL 500.3114(4) provides that he “shall claim” them under the MACP.
Garrett said that conclusion skipped the last step of the analysis.
“MCL 500.3114(4) instructs that claims for PIP benefits made to the MACP are governed by the provisions of MCL 500.3171 through MCL 500.3175. And these statutory provisions contain their own eligibility requirements,” she wrote. “Thus, being in the order of priority does not by itself mean that the MACP is obligated to pay benefits, nor does it automatically mean that Steanhouse is eligible for benefits under the MACP’s requirements.”
The Steanhouse I court held that since MCL 500.3172(1) “requires a claimant seeking benefits through the MACP to show that the accident giving rise to the claim occurred in Michigan,” the defendants were entitled to deny Steanhouse’s claim because the auto accident happened in Ohio.
“Steanhouse challenges this interpretation, arguing that MCL 500.3172(1) has no application to out-of-state accidents; if the accident occurs out of state, MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(4) control entitlement to benefits through the MACP,” Garrett wrote. “We disagree and reaffirm our prior interpretation. Under MCL 500.3172(1), a claimant is ineligible for PIP benefits through the MACP when the claimant’s injury arises from an out-of-state accident.”
The matter returns to Wayne County for further proceedings.
If you would like to comment on this story, contact Cory Linsner at clinsner@milawyersweekly.com .
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0