This page identifies recent decisions and orders issued by the Michigan Supreme Court that deal with the Michigan Auto No-Fault Act.
Over the last year, the Supreme Court issued three (3) new decisions dealing with the Auto No-Fault Act, and there are currently ten (1) cases pending decision before the Court. The first of the recently decided cases is Moody v Zakir, which was decided on May 31, 2023. There, the Court held that the post-accident rescission of a no-fault insurance policy “does not operate to alter the past by rendering the insured as having been without no-fault insurance at the time of the accident for purposes of the prohibition contained in MCL 500.3135(2)(c).”).
The second of the recently decided cases is the landmark case of Andary, et al v USAA Cas Ins Co, which was decided on July 31, 2023. In Andary, the Court held that the 55% non-Medicare fee schedule pursuant to §3157(7) and the 56 hour per week limitation on family provided attendant care pursuant to §3157(10) could not be applied to individuals who were injured before 2019 PA 21 went into effect on June 11, 2019, and who were drawing benefits under a policy purchased by themselves or a resident relative.
The third recently decided case is the case of Bellmore v Friendly Oil Change, Inc et al, which was decided on February 7, 2024, There, the Court held that “because the plaintiff’s injury occurred while she was participating in the maintenance of her vehicle, her injury sustained by failing into the service pit used to perform the maintenance bears a causal relationship to the maintenance of her vehicle as a motor vehicle that was more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” Furthermore, the Court ruled that assessment of § 3106(1) is unnecessary for injury that arises from the maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.
The ten (10) cases that are currently pending before the Supreme Court are as follows:
- Ravenell, et al v ACIA (deciding whether an insurer is entitled to equitable subrogation after mistakenly paying no-fault benefits)
- In re Guardianship of Malloy (deciding whether the guardianship services were “lawfully rendered” so as to render them payable under MCL 500.3107 of the no-fault act).
- Childers v Progressive Marathon Insurance Company; 164953; 05/26/2023 (deciding whether the no-fault one-year statute of limitations in MCL 500.3145(1) bars recovery of PIP benefits from the insurer in the secondary payor position after the priority payor becomes insolvent). Oral arguments are scheduled for March of 2024.
- Williamson v AAA of Michigan, 165131; 06/02/2023 (deciding whether an assigned claims insurer can disqualify all no-fault claims if the insured makes fraudulent statements during litigation about one specific claim). Oral arguments are scheduled for March of 2024.
- C-Spine Orthopedics v Progressive Michigan Ins Co; 165537; 9/13/2023 (deciding whether a provider who has obtained an assignment of rights from its patient can bring a direct action for PIP benefits against an insurer when the provider further assigned its right to payment of the benefits at issue to another entity prior to bringing suit).
- Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena, Docket No. 165577; 10/18/2023 (deciding whether no-fault insurance policies issued after the passage of PA 21/22 must automatically increase, or “step up,” the statutory minimum liability coverage from $20,000/$40,000 to $250,000/500,000 on July 2, 2020, when the new PIP-choice provisions took effect and drivers and vehicle owners became exposed to expanded tort liability for residual bodily injury claims).
- True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co, 165845; 10/18/2023 (deciding whether the new utilization review procedure set forth in MCL 500.3157a is a provider’s exclusive means of challenging an insurer’s UR determination regarding the reasonableness of the provider’s charges for medical services and/or the reasonable necessity of the services rendered).
- Wallace v Suburban Mobility, 165964; 11/22/2023 (deciding whether a plaintiff has standing and is a real party in interest if, before filing a cause of action, she had assigned her rights to that cause of action to her medical providers but, after filing the cause of action, the plaintiff and medical providers rescind the assignments; and deciding the effect, if any, of the one-year-back rule on the plaintiff’s standing and status as a real party in interest.
- Encompass Healthcare, PLLC v Citizens Ins Co, 165321; 11/22/2023 (deciding whether the new one-year-back tolling provisions of MCL 500.3145(3) apply in an action for PIP benefits that was brought after the amendments of PA 21/PA22 were enacted but seeks to recover no-fault PIP benefits that accrued before those amendments were enacted; and deciding whether the Court of Appeals “adopted the correct standard for determining whether an insurer ‘formally denies’ a claim” for purposes of the new one-year back tolling provisions of MCL 500.the one-year-back period “formal denial” requirement of the new tolling provisions).
- Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v Member Select Ins Co; 165445; 11/22/2023 (deciding whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the new tolling provisions of MCL 500.3145(3) do not apply in an action seeking to recover PIP benefits that accrued before the amendments to § 3145(3) took effect).
Additional links and information regarding these and other important no-fault cases is set forth below.
Recent Decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court
Bellmore v Friendly Oil Change, Inc et al
In this 5-1 decision, (Justice Bernstein did not participate), the Supreme Court held that “because the plaintiff’s injury occurred while she was participating in the maintenance of her vehicle, her injury sustained by failing into the service pit used to perform the maintenance bears a causal relationship to the maintenance of her vehicle as a motor vehicle that was more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.” Furthermore, the Court ruled that assessment of § 3106(1) is unnecessary for injury that arises from the maintenance of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Justice Zahra wrote a dissent expressing his disagreement with the majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals. In his dissent, he expressed the view that he would overrule Miller v Auto-Owners Ins Co for the reasons stated in Woodring v. Phoenix Ins Co and “hold that MCL 500.3106(1) is inapplicable to this case because plaintiff’s car was not parked within the meaning of the statute.”
Moody v Zakir, et al
In a unanimous Opinion by Justice Cavanagh (with Justice Bolden not participating), the Supreme Court held that the post-accident rescission of a no-fault insurance policy “does not operate to alter the past by rendering the insured as having been without no-fault insurance at the time of the accident for purposes of the prohibition contained in MCL 500.3135(2)(c).”
Andary, et al v USAA et al
In this 5-2 Opinion by Justice Welch (with Justice and Zahara dissenting), the Supreme Court held, in sum, that the 55% non-Medicare fee schedule pursuant to §3157(7) and the 56 hour per week limitation on family provided attendant care pursuant to §3157(10) could not be applied to individuals who were injured before 2019 PA 21 went into effect on June 11, 2019, and who were drawing benefits under a policy purchased by themselves or a resident relative. Specifically, the Court stated:
“The insurance policies covering plaintiffs Ellen Andary and Phillip Krueger bind the insurance companies to their promise to provide PIP benefits under the law that existed at the time of injury to those individuals covered by the policies, and the 2019 no-fault amendments do not clearly convey an intent to retroactively modify these vested contractual rights. Andary and Krueger are covered by policies under which premiums were paid with the expectation that uncapped lifetime benefits would be provided for all reasonable and necessary medical expenses. Their vested contractual right to continuation of those benefits at pre-amendment levels cannot be stripped away or diminished when the Legislature has failed to clearly state its intent to do so.”
Stuth v Home-Owners Insurance Company
On May 26, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an order directing mini oral arguments to be held in this case involving a motorcyclist who was injured after taking evasive action to avoid striking a motor vehicle that appeared to be crossing over into the motorcyclist’s lane. After oral arguments were held, however, the Supreme Court issued an order on January 26, 2024 denying leave without rendering a decision on the merits. Justice Cavanagh wrote a lengthy dissent expressing her disagreement with the majority’s decision to deny leave. In her dissent, she expressed the view that the current “arising out of” test for determining whether a motorcyclist is entitled to PIP benefits (in Detroit Med Ctr v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 302 Mich App 392 (2013) improperly amounts to a fault-based test that is inconsistent with the no-fault act.
Whitney v. Wilcoxson
On May 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an order directing mini-oral arguments to be held in this case involving whether the plaintiff was “operating… his own vehicle at the time the injury occurred” for purposes of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) of the no-fault act. After oral arguments were held, the Supreme Court issued an order on January 24, 2024, denying leave without rendering a decision on the merits.
No-Fault Cases Currently Pending Before the Michigan Supreme Court
Ravenell, et al v ACIA
On November 2, 2022, the Supreme Court directed the Clerk of the Court to schedule mini oral argument on the application and instructed the parties to address “the extent to which the reasonableness of an insurer’s mistaken belief that it was required to pay a claim is a factor in determining whether the insurer is entitled to equitable subrogation.”
In re Guardianship of Malloy
On April 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether the Court of Appeals properly construed and applied the relevant provisions of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, MCL 700.1101 et seq., in determining that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the guardianship services provided by the appellee and the appellee firm were “lawfully rendered” so as to be payable under MCL 500.3107 of the no fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.”
Childers v Progressive Marathon Insurance Company
On May 26, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “(1) at what point does a claim for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under the no-fault act accrue when an insurer providing those benefits is declared insolvent and another insurer is identified the Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association, see generally MCL 600.5827; Frank v Linkner, 500 Mich 133 (2017); Titan Ins Co v North Pointe Ins Co, 270 Mich App 339 (2006); (2) what statute-of-limitations period would apply to such a claim, see MCL 500.3145(1); MCL 600.5813; and (3) whether the appellant is an insurer in the chain of priority insurers, see former MCL 500.3114(4), as amended by 2002 PA 38; Dobbelaere v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 275 Mich App 527 (2007); Amerisure Ins Co v Coleman, 274 Mich App 432 (2007).”
Williamson v AAA of Michigan
On June 2, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether MCL 500.3173a(4), the statutory provision governing fraudulent insurance acts in the filing of a claim for no-fault benefits, applies to misrepresentations offered during discovery.”
C-Spine Orthopedics v Progressive Michigan Ins Co
On September 13, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether a plaintiff has standing and is a real party in interest if, before filing a cause of action, it had assigned its rights to that cause of action to third parties but, after filing the cause of action, the third parties assign those rights back to it.”
Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena
On October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether automobile policies delivered or issued for delivery prior to July 2, 2020, that insure against loss “resulting from liability imposed by law for property damage, bodily injury, or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle,” are subject to heightened liability coverage limits effective after July 1, 2020.”
True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co
On October 18, 2023 , the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether the administrative appeal and judicial review of utilization review determinations set forth in MCL 500.3157a(5) and Mich Admin Code R 500.65 provides the exclusive method for obtaining review of such determinations or whether, as the Court of Appeals concluded, that appeal is merely an alternative to a healthcare provider filing a lawsuit pursuant to MCL 500.3112.”
Wallace v Suburban Mobility
On November 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “(1) whether a plaintiff has standing and is a real party in interest if, before filing a cause of action, she had assigned her rights to that cause of action to her medical providers but, after filing the cause of action, the plaintiff and medical providers rescind the assignments, see MCR 2.201(B)(1); MCL 600.2041; Wilmore-Moody v Zakir, 511 Mich 76 (2023); and (2) the effect, if any, of the one-year-back rule of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3145(2), on the plaintiff’s standing and status as a real party in interest.”
Encompass Healthcare, PLLC v Citizens Ins Co
On November 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “: (1) whether the defendant waived its challenge to the retroactive application of MCL 500.3145(3); (2) whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(3), to claims that accrued, MCL 500.3110(4), before the amendment to § 3145 took effect on June 11, 2019, cf. Spine Specialists of Mich, PC v MemberSelect Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___ (Docket No. 358296, rel’d November 17, 2022); and (3) if so, whether the Court of Appeals adopted the correct standard for determining whether an insurer “formally denies” a claim for purposes of tolling the one-year-back period in § 3145(3).”
Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v Member Select Ins Co
On November 22, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to schedule oral arguments on the Application and directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the tolling provision of the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(3), does not apply to claims for personal protection insurance no-fault benefits that accrued, MCL 500.3110(4), before the amendment to § 3145 took effect on June 11, 2019.”
No-Fault Case Summary Indexes
Previous Quarterly No-Fault
Case Summary Reports: