Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #321649; Docket #321774; Unpublished
Judges Ronayne Krause, Gleicher, and Stephens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the failure to send notice to persons not designated as named insureds on the no-fault policy was not fatal to the cancellation of the no-fault policy.
Plaintiff in this case was seriously injured in an auto accident. Plaintiff’s mother was the named insured on a no-fault policy with defendant MetLife. Plaintiff was designated on the policy as the named insured’s “child.” MetLife denied plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits, asserting the policy had not been renewed via a non-renewal letter it sent to the last-known address of the named insured (plaintiff’s mother’s). The named insured (plaintiff’s mother) claimed she did not receive the non-renewal notice in a timely manner, and filed this action seeking coverage. McLaren Hospital, which had provided medical treatment to plaintiff, intervened as a plaintiff. Plaintiffs challenged the sufficiency of the non-renewal notice, alleging that MetLife was required to send a separate non-renewal notice to plaintiff because he was the registered owner of the vehicle, and the failure to do so voided the non-renewal that was sent to the named insured (plaintiff’s mother). MetLife claimed that, under the policy, it only had to send notice of non-renewal to the named insured, which was plaintiff’s mother, at her last-known address by first-class mail, which it did. The trial court summarily dismissed plaintiff’s action, finding the non-renewal notice was valid and the policy was not in effect at the time of the accident.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because the policy was not effectively renewed. In this regard, the court said:
“[Plaintiff’s mother] is the only person listed in the policy declarations as the ‘named insured.’ [Plaintiff] is designated as ‘child.’ Therefore, Metlife was required under the policy to mail notice only to [plaintiff’s mother]. Metlife used first-class mail to send the notice 33 days before policy expiration, well in excess of the contractual notice period. And [plaintiff’s mother’s] claim that she did not receive the nonrenewal letter does not invalidate the termination. The policy specifically provides that ‘[p]roof of mailing of any notice shall be sufficient proof of notice.’ Accordingly, under the plain language of the Metlife policy, the policy was validly non-renewed and coverage did not exist at the time of [plaintiff’s] accident.”
Plaintiff further claimed that MetLife had a duty to change the policy declarations and list him as a named insured because he was the registered owner of the covered vehicle. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and said:
“[Plaintiff] cites no legal support for such a duty. The Metlife policy itself provides no parameters for designating an individual as an ‘insured’ in the policy declarations. Rather, it seems that a person becomes a ‘named insured’ by requesting such designation. As neither [plaintiff’s mother] nor [plaintiff] made such a request, [plaintiff] was not entitled to re-designation.”
Regarding plaintiffs’ argument that the statutory notice provisions in MCL 500.3020 and MCL 500.3224 invalidated the policy non-renewal, the Court of Appeals pointed out these statutes apply only to a policy cancellation, and not to a non-renewal. The court concluded:
“Metlife used first-class mail to send notice to [plaintiff’s mother] on August 5, 2012, 33 days before the policy would expire. The refusal to renew therefore cannot be deemed a ‘cancellation’ and MCL 500.3020 and MCL 500.3224 are inapplicable.”
