Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 340816; Unpublished
Judges Letica, Kelly, and Boonstra; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Assignments of Benefits—Validity and Enforceability
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision involving an assignment of rights to no-fault PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that anti-assignment clauses in automobile policies are unenforceable because they violate public policy. Since the insured in this action assigned her rights to no-fault PIP benefits to her treating physicians for any charges she had already incurred, the subject assignment was valid.
In this case, the defendant’s insured was injured in a motor vehicle collision and received treatment for her injuries from the plaintiff, Associated Surgical Center, PLLC. The plaintiff filed an action to recover no-fault PIP benefits from the defendant for treatments it provided to the defendant’s insured, under a theory of assignment. The defendant successfully motioned for summary disposition, arguing that the anti-assignment clause in its insured’s policy barred the assignment because the defendant did not consent to it.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, reaffirming its prior holding in Shah that such clauses violate public policy and are therefore invalid. Since the defendant’s insured assigned her rights, explicitly, for any charges she “incurred” for her treatments, the assignments were valid and in accord with MCL 500.3143.
Additionally, in Henry Ford Health Sys v Everest Nat’l Ins Co, 326 Mich App 398, 410- 411; 927 NW2d 717 (2018), this Court reaffirmed its holding in Shah and concluded that an antiassignment clause in an insurance policy is “unenforceable because it is against public policy to the extent that it attempts to restrict the insured’s ability to assign an accrued claim.” Therefore, consistent with Shah and Henry Ford Health Sys, the antiassignment clause in this case violates Michigan public policy because an antiassignment clause is unenforceable with respect to a postloss assignment of an accrued claim. Henry Ford Health Sys, 326 Mich App at 404-405, 410-411; Shah, 324 Mich App at 199-200.
The assignments executed by defendant’s insured provide, “Assignor hereby certifies that upon execution of this agreement, Assignor has incurred charges with respect to Services from Assignee on or before the date of execution for which the rights, privileges, claims and remedies for payment for each of those Services are hereby assigned to Assignee.” (Emphasis added.)
. . .
Given the repeated use of the past tense term “incurred” and the explicit reference to benefits that are “due or past due,” it is evident that defendant’s insured only assigned her right to collect past or presently due benefits arising from the services plaintiff provided. Consequently, the antiassignment clause in the subject insurance policy is unenforceable with respect to the assignments at issue in this case. Henry Ford Health Sys, 326 Mich App at 404-405; Shah, 324 Mich App at 199-200. Furthermore, the assignments do not run afoul of MCL 500.3143, which only prohibits an assignment of benefits payable in the future. Prof Rehab Assoc, 228 Mich App at 172.
