Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 348961; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Cavanagh, and Swartzle; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General/Miscellaneous [§3101]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first party no-fault action against his automobile insurer, Everest National Insurance Company. At the time of the subject motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff’s insurance policy with Everest had lapsed because the plaintiff failed to pay his insurance premium by its due date. Thus, plaintiff was uninsured at the time of the collision and therefore precluded from recovering no-fault PIP benefits related to the injuries he sustained in the collision.
Jeffrey Michael Allen was injured as a result of a motor vehicle collision, and filed a claim for no-fault PIP benefits with his insurer, Everest National Insurance Company. Everest denied Allen’s claim, noting that Allen’s policy had expired two days prior to the collision as a result of nonpayment of the premium. The collision occurred on January 13, 2018, and Allen’s premium was due by January 6, 2018. Everest even sent Allen a notice in December 2017 informing Allen that the premium was due by January 6, 2018, and that if he failed to pay the premium by the due date, the policy would expire on January 11, 2018. Approximately four hours after the collision on January 13, 2018, Allen submitted a payment to renew his insurance with a lapse in coverage. However, the trial court determined that the policy was not in effect at the time of the collision, and therefore granted summary disposition in favor of Everest.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of Everest, relying on a statement in the certificate of insurance that stated “‘all coverage will be null and void regardless of listed expiration date if premium billed is not paid or policy is cancelled for valid reasons.” Furthermore, Allen submitted his renewal premium payment approximately four hours after the collision through an online payment system, and in doing so, agreed to be bound by the site’s terms and conditions, “which included that his lapsed automobile insurance policy would not be reinstated until the date and time of payment.”
Here, plaintiff failed to renew the insurance policy before it expired. Defendant sent plaintiff a renewal notice in December 2017, which stated that plaintiff was required to pay the premium by January 6, 2018, or the policy would expire on January 11, 2018 at 12:01 a.m. Plaintiff admitted that he did not submit the premium payment by January 6, 2018. Additionally, the certificate of insurance stated that “all coverage will be null and void regardless of listed expiration date if premium billed is not paid or policy is cancelled for valid reasons[.]” Further, the insurance policy explicitly provided that the insurance policy automatically terminated at the end of the policy term when an offer to renew the policy is rejected. Therefore, plaintiff’s insurance policy terminated at the end of the policy term on January 11, 2018.
Alternatively, plaintiff argues that he was covered by the insurance policy issued by defendant on January 13, 2018, because the January 12, 2018 offer-to-renew correspondence stated that there would be a lapse in coverage until the date the payment was received. Plaintiff argues that he was covered by this policy because the premium payment was received on January 13, 2018, and the correspondence did not indicate that the coverage would be effective at the time and date the payment was made. However, plaintiff submitted his premium payment through Arrowhead Exchange, an online payment system, on January 13, 2018, at approximately 5:39 p.m. EST. By submitting payment through Arrowhead Exchange, plaintiff agreed to be bound by certain terms and conditions, which included that his lapsed automobile insurance policy would not be reinstated until the date and time of payment.
Plaintiff does not argue that he was not bound by the Arrowhead Exchange terms and conditions; rather, he argues that the terms and conditions created an ambiguity regarding when coverage began on January 13, 2018, because the January 12, 2018 correspondence indicated that coverage took effect on January 13, 2018, at 12:01 a.m. But the correspondence and Arrowhead exchange terms are not ambiguous because they do not irreconcilably conflict with each other and are not equally susceptible to more than one meaning. See Dancey v Travelers Prop Cas Co of America, 288 Mich App 1, 8; 792 NW2d 372 (2010). Rather, the Arrowhead Exchange conditions and terms explicitly stated, “If your automobile or motorcycle policy is in lapse status, you acknowledge that your policy will not be reinstated until the date and time payment is submitted via the Arrowhead Exchange website.” Plaintiff accepted the additional terms and conditions by submitting his payment via the Arrowhead Exchange website. Therefore, plaintiff’s insurance was not reinstated until the date and time he submitted his payment, which was after the motor vehicle accident.
