Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.308401; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Beckering; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
Reimbursement to Servicing Insurer or ACF [§3172(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed from defendant American Country Insurance Company for settlement of a claim for PIP benefits under the Assigned Claim procedures where defendant had failed to avail itself of the opportunity to adjust, settle, or dispute the claim.
In this case, Alexandria Turner was involved in two accidents. The first accident in January 2009 involved a collision with a pole while she was driving an uninsured vehicle. The second accident occurred in the following month, when Turner was a passenger in a vehicle insured by defendant American Country Insurance Company. Turner applied to the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (ACF) for PIP benefits on the first accident. The ACF assigned her claim to plaintiff Titan Insurance Company. Turner then applied for PIP benefits from ACF for the second accident and that claim was also assigned to plaintiff Titan.
Subsequently, Turner commenced a lawsuit against Titan seeking additional PIP benefits. Following commencement of that action, Titan settled both claims involving each accident; the first for a $10,000 payment and the second for a $25,000 payment. After settling the claims, Titan filed this lawsuit against American Country Insurance as the insurer of the vehicle in which Turner was a passenger in the second accident seeking reimbursement pursuant to MCL 500.3172 of the $25,000 settlement payment. Defendant American Country denied the reimbursement claim, asserting that Turner had not sustained any injuries in the second accident and, therefore, defendant had no liability to Titan for the settlement.
In affirming the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Titan regarding reimbursement for the cost of the $25,000 settlement of the second accident claim, the Court of Appeals addressed defendant’s argument that the then applicable version of MCL 500.3172(1) obligated reimbursement from the defaulting insurers “to the extent of their financial responsibility.” Defendant contended that because Turner was not injured in the second accident, defendant had no “financial responsibility” for Turner’s claim or the accompanying settlement.
The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument under §3172(1), noting that the Assigned Claim plan obligated the servicing insurer, Titan, to adjust the Assigned Claim benefits for Turner regarding the second accident. This obligation continued even after Titan determined that defendant was the PIP carrier on the car involved in the second accident. Given that plaintiff Titan was statutorily obligated to adjust Turner’s claim, “defendant cannot now avoid liability by asserting that plaintiff should have denied the claim for lack of proof of injury.” The court also held that the defendant failed to avail itself of the opportunity to adjust, settle, or dispute Turner’s claim, despite having notice of its potential liability to Turner. Had defendant assumed the adjustment responsibility for Turner’s claim, defendant could have pursued its defense regarding Turner’s lack of injuries. Absent some justification for defendant’s failure to assume responsibility for handling Turner’s claim, the Court of Appeals stated that nothing in the applicable facts or the controlling statutes relieves defendant of its obligation to reimburse plaintiff for the settlement on Turner’s claim.
In a related issue, the Court of Appeals also upheld the trial court determination that defendant was obligated to pay not only the settlement amount of $25,000, but also “loss adjustment costs” in the amount of $1,285.28. The court relied upon the provisions of Michigan Administrative Rule 11.105 which allow for reimbursement of the personal injury protection benefits paid, as well as “appropriate loss adjustment costs which are incurred.” Accordingly, the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Titan was affirmed.
