Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 168083; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Hoekstra, and Beagle; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
This short, rather confusing unpublished per curiam Opinion, deals with a dispute between two insurance companies as to which had the ultimate liability for payment of no-fault PIP benefits. The Court of Appeals ruled that summary disposition was inappropriate and remanded the case back to the trial court. The issue was whether or not one of the insurance companies, in spite of canceling the injured person's policy prior to a particular date, actually continued the coverage without interruption by accepting a premium payment on or about the date of cancellation and then subsequently issuing a notice to the insured person that the policy was continued without interruption. The court held that because this case involved reliance upon a waiver or estoppel theory against the company seeking to enforce its earlier cancellation, "resolution of these issues requires further factual development," thus making summary disposition inappropriate.