Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #317813; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Markey and Wilder; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for the Temporarily Unemployed [§3107a]
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
Cancellation of Policy for Nonpayment of Premium [§3220]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was improperly granted on the issue of whether the insured’s no-fault policy was properly canceled by Starr Indemnity in accordance with MCL 500.3220, because under the circumstances, a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether the insured had properly paid her premiums. Given the existence of this question of fact, the Court of Appeals further held that summary disposition was improper on the issue of whether ACIA (which paid benefits as an assigned insurer) was entitled to reimbursement from Starr Indemnity.
Regarding the insured’s underlying no-fault claim, the Court of Appeals further held that ACIA was entitled to summary disposition on the issue of whether the injured claimant was entitled to wage loss benefits while temporarily employed, because he failed to present sufficient evidence that he would have obtained a job had he not been injured.
The claimant in this case, Russell Reed, was injured while driving a vehicle owned by Mary Reed. The nature of the relationship between Russell and Mary was not made clear in the opinion. Mary had a no-fault policy with Starr Indemnity for the vehicle involved in the accident (which Russell was driving), as well as for other vehicles she owned. Prior to the accident, Starr Indemnity had canceled Mary’s policy due to alleged nonpayment. Thereafter, Russell sought to recover PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility. Russell’s claim was assigned to ACIA, which began paying Russell PIP benefits for injuries arising out of the accident. However, ACIA denied benefits for amounts sought for work loss because Russell was temporarily unemployed at the time of the accident. This action followed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered several issues: 1) whether the trial court properly concluded as a matter of law that Starr Indemnity’s cancelation of its no-fault policy was proper; 2) whether ACIA was entitled to reimbursement from Starr Indemnity for benefits it had paid; and 3) whether Russell presented sufficient evidence to support his claim for work loss benefits.
The Court of Appeals held that a question of fact existed as to whether Mary’s policy was properly canceled by Starr Indemnity. It also held that Russell was not entitled to work loss benefits. In light of the questions surrounding whether Mary’s policy was properly canceled, the Court of Appeals further held that ACIA should not have been granted summary disposition on its reimbursement claim.
Regarding whether Starr Indemnity had properly canceled Mary’s policy, the Court of Appeals said a question of fact remained on this issue. The court explained:
“There is no indication in the record regarding whether the $149.76 Mary paid Starr on May 25, 2011 would cover her temporary addition of [her son], the Grand Am, and the truck to her policy. If the $149.76 covered the additions, Mary would not have owed Starr any part of the $256.37 payment that it claimed was due by June 23, 2011, and Starr would not have been legally entitled to cancel her insurance policy for nonpayment of her insurance premiums. … Accordingly, when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to Mary, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Mary failed to pay her insurance premiums, and there is a question regarding whether Starr was legally entitled to cancel her insurance policy. The trial court erred when it granted summary disposition to Starr ….”
In light of the issue of whether Starr Indemnity appropriately canceled Mary’s policy, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was improperly granted on ACIA’s reimbursement claim. Noting that MCL 500.3177(1) allows an insurer that paid benefits to seek reimbursement from the vehicle’s owner (Mary), the court said:
“[T]here is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Mary failed to pay her insurance premiums; consequently, there is a question regarding whether Starr was legally entitled to cancel her insurance policy. If Starr insured the 2001 Ford Explorer at the time of the accident, ACIA would not be entitled to reimbursement from Mary under MCL 500.3177(1). … [T]he trial court erred when it granted ACIA summary disposition and entered judgment against Mary for the benefits ACIA paid to Russell.”
As for Russell’s work loss claim, the Court of Appeals found that he was not entitled to benefits. The court pointed out that Russell was receiving workers’ compensation benefits until right before the accident, and that Russell indicated he was “actively seeking” employment at the time of the accident. However, the court said Russell did not present sufficient evidence of his work loss. The court reasoned:
“Russell’s affidavit and the remainder of the evidence before the trial court did not show that Russell would have been successful in obtaining a job if he had not been injured in the July 2011 automobile accident. Accordingly, Russell did not provide ‘evidence showing the unemployed status would not have been permanent if the injury had not occurred.’ … ACIA is entitled to summary disposition … because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Russell’s unemployment was temporary, and ACIA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding Russell’s claim for work-loss benefits.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
