Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #265826; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Saad, and Bandstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for plaintiff, finding that defendant no-fault insurer properly refused to pay benefits where plaintiff’s policy had lapsed even though plaintiff paid the premium after the accident as there was no provision in the policy providing for uninterrupted coverage upon receipt of a late premium payment. The plaintiff in this case sustained disabling injuries when a dump truck ran a red light and hit her vehicle. Defendant refused to pay no-fault benefits because plaintiff’s policy had lapsed at the time of the accident. The trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to benefits because defendant accepted payment tendered after the accident occurred. On appeal, plaintiff argued that if an insurer unconditionally accepts a late payment with knowledge that a loss has occurred, the insurer can be found to have waived its right to assert the policy had lapsed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that defendant had not waived its right to assert that the policy had lapsed. In so finding, the Court of Appeals noted the policy expired before the accident without plaintiff paying the renewal premium. The policy contained no provision allowing for continued coverage if the premium was paid by a certain date and there was no evidence that defendant had represented that plaintiff would have continued coverage if she paid the premium. Moreover, plaintiff’s father paid the premium after he was told there would be no coverage if the premium had not been paid before the accident. Although defendant retained the premium, it insured plaintiff as of the date it received the premium. Furthermore, no evidence was offered to justify the application of equitable estoppel. In this regard, the court stated:
“The policy issued by defendant to Hodge expired on July 2,2003, without Hodge having paid the renewal premium. The policy contained no provision allowing for continuing coverage if the premium was paid within a grace period after the expiration date. No evidence showed that defendant represented to Hodge that she would enjoy continuing coverage even if she paid the premium in an untimely manner. . . . Plaintiff paid the minimum amount due shown on Hodge’s renewal notice after the accident occurred, after defendant had been notified of the accident, and after defendant had advised John Hodge that coverage would not be available if payment had not been made prior to the expiration date of the policy. Defendant retained the premium, and insured Hodge effective the day after the premium payment was postmarked. This act was consistent with defendant’s past and current practice. No evidence showed that defendant was informed that Hodge’s vehicle had been destroyed and that she had not obtained a replacement vehicle. . . . No evidence showed that defendant informed plaintiff that its retention of the premium signaled its willingness to continue Hodge’s coverage without interruption. Plaintiff did not show that defendant acted in a manner that would justify the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude defendant from denying coverage for Hodge’s loss. . . . Reversed and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of defendant.”
