Enhance Ctr for Interventional Spine and Sports v Allstate Ins Co, et al (COA – UNP 7/27/2023; RB #4618)
Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #361517; Unpublished
Judges Cameron, Borrello, and O’Brien; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEX:
Exception for Motorcycle Injuries [§3114(5)]
TOPICAL INDEX:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous, unpublished, per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order dismissing Defendant Progressive Michigan Insurance Company (“Progressive”) from Plaintiff Enhance Center for Interventional Spine and Sports’ (“Enhance”) action for unpaid no-fault PIP benefits against both Progressive and Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The Court of Appeals held that a proper examination of the Allstate policy at issue was required to determine whether Allstate was, for purposes of MCL 500.3114(5), an “insurer” of an Uber driver who crashed into a motorcyclist.
Jason Rutten was riding his motorcycle when he collided with a vehicle driven by Benjamin Weston. Weston was driving for Uber at the time of the collision and was covered under a no-fault policy issued by Allstate to Raiser, LLC (“Raiser”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber. Weston also maintained personal no-fault insurance through Progressive, and following the collision, a dispute arose between the two insurers as to who was highest in priority for payment of Rutten’s PIP benefits. One of Rutten’s providers, Enhance, ultimately filed suit against the two insurers, and Allstate moved for summary disposition, arguing that it insured Raiser, not Weston, and therefore was not in the order of priority at all because it did not insure the ‘owner,’ ‘registrant,’ or ‘operator’ of the motor vehicle involved in the accident for purposes of MCL 500.3114(5). Progressive, on the other hand, argued that Allstate was the highest priority insurer because it insured Weston while he was driving for Uber and was, therefore, Weston’s “insurer” for purposes of MCL 500.3114(5). The trial court dispensed with oral argument and denied Allstate’s motion, writing only, “Allstate is the highest in order of priority and the motor vehicle in question was a covered auto under the policy.”
The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s denial of Allstate’s motion for summary disposition and remanded back to the trial court to examine the actual language in the Allstate policy. The Court noted that neither party actually produced a copy of the Allstate policy and that resolution of the dispute required examining the policy to determine whether its “definition of the named insured included Weston when he was working in his capacity as an Uber driver.” If it did, the Court implied that Allstate and Progressive would perhaps be in the same order of priority pursuant to MCL 500.3114(7) and (8).
“Here, the trial court seemingly concluded that Allstate was the insurer of Weston as the operator of the vehicle and that Allstate was therefore the highest in the order of priority under MCL 500.3114(5). However, the trial court record does not contain any portion of Allstate’s policy that demonstrates that the policy’s definition of the named insured included Weston when he was working in his capacity as an Uber driver. Stone, 307 Mich App at 176-178. In fact, there is little if any evidence of any insurance policy contained in the trial court record. Additionally, the trial court’s single sentence of conclusory analysis finding that Allstate was highest in the order of priority, combined with the deficient evidentiary record that resulted from the parties’ neglect in providing the trial court with the pertinent evidence to support their respective arguments, leaves this Court with an insufficient basis on which to provide meaningful appellate review. Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Titan Ins Co, 252 Mich App 330, 338; 652 NW2d 469 (2002). We therefore vacate the trial court’s orders finding that Allstate was highest in priority and its orders denying Allstate’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing Progressive from this case, both of which were based on the trial court’s finding that Allstate was highest in the order of priority. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
