Background
Thelma Melton was injured while driving a vehicle insured by Progressive under a policy issued to her unmarried partner, Bossie Baker. Although the policy’s declarations page listed Melton as a driver and indicated that she was eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage, Baker was the named insured. Melton was neither Baker’s spouse nor his relative.
Progressive denied Melton’s PIP claim, and the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan assigned it to Citizens. Citizens filed a third-party complaint seeking reimbursement from Progressive and a declaration that Progressive was responsible for the claim or was equitably estopped from denying coverage. The circuit court granted Progressive summary disposition. It later dismissed the remaining case when the parties failed to appear for trial and declined to reinstate it to decide Citizens’s pending reconsideration motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that it had appellate jurisdiction because the dismissal and subsequent order denying reinstatement left nothing for the circuit court to decide, even though the dismissal was without prejudice. Citizens’s appeal from those final orders also permitted review of the earlier summary-disposition order.
On the merits, the court held that Melton was not eligible for PIP benefits from Progressive under either MCL 500.3114(1) or the policy. She was not a named insured, spouse, or qualifying relative, and her designation as an additional driver eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage did not make her an eligible injured person under the policy. Equitable estoppel also failed because Progressive made no coverage representation to Melton, she never saw the policy or declarations page, she paid no premium, and she did not rely on any Progressive representation.
The circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to decide Citizens’s timely reconsideration motion and then denying reinstatement, but the error was harmless. Because Citizens’s equitable-estoppel theory lacked merit, resolving the motion would not have changed the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- Listing someone as an additional driver or as eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage does not make that person a named insured under Michigan’s no-fault priority statute.
- Equitable estoppel requires a representation to the person asserting coverage and evidence of justifiable reliance; neither existed here.
- A circuit court abuses its discretion by refusing to exercise discretion over a timely reconsideration motion, but reversal is unwarranted when the error could not affect the result.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that PIP priority depends on the governing statute and the policy’s operative definitions, not an isolated notation on a declarations page or certificate of insurance. Insurers handling assigned claims cannot shift responsibility through equitable estoppel without evidence that the claimant knew of and relied on the alleged coverage representation.
The opinion also clarifies that a dismissal without prejudice may be appealable when nothing remains for the trial court to decide, allowing review of earlier interlocutory rulings.