Background
Thelma Melton lived with her unmarried partner, Bossie Baker. Baker held a Progressive automobile policy whose application incorrectly described them as married. Although the declarations page identified Melton as a driver and as eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage, it named only Baker as the insured. Melton was injured while driving a vehicle covered by the policy, and Progressive denied her PIP claim because she was neither a named insured nor Baker’s spouse or relative.
Melton later submitted a claim through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, which assigned it to Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest. After Melton sued Citizens, Citizens filed a third-party complaint seeking reimbursement and a declaration that Progressive was responsible. The circuit court granted Progressive summary disposition. It later dismissed the remaining case without prejudice after the parties failed to appear for trial and declined to reinstate the case to decide Citizens’s pending reconsideration motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction because the dismissal and the order denying reinstatement left nothing for the circuit court to decide and therefore qualified as final orders. Citizens’s appeal from those orders also permitted review of the earlier summary-disposition ruling.
On the merits, the court held that Melton was not eligible for PIP benefits from Progressive under either MCL 500.3114(1) or Baker’s policy. She was not a named insured, spouse, or relative, and merely being listed as a driver or as eligible for PIP coverage on the declarations page did not place her within the policy’s definition of an eligible injured person. The certificate of insurance listing her as a named insured did not alter that result because it was not part of the insurance contract.
The court also rejected equitable estoppel because Progressive made no coverage representation to Melton and there was no evidence that she saw the policy documents, communicated with Progressive, paid the premium, or relied on a Progressive representation. Although the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to decide Citizens’s timely reconsideration motion, the error was harmless because the estoppel argument lacked merit. The court therefore affirmed, leaving Citizens responsible as the assigned insurer.
Key Takeaways
- A person listed only as a driver is not a person named in the policy for purposes of Michigan’s no-fault priority statute.
- A declarations-page statement that a driver is eligible for PIP coverage does not override an unambiguous policy definition that excludes the driver.
- Equitable estoppel requires an inducement and justifiable reliance; neither existed where the claimant never saw the policy documents or communicated with the insurer.
- A court’s failure to decide a timely reconsideration motion may be harmless when the motion could not have changed the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan PIP priority turns on statutory status and the policy’s operative definitions, not isolated labels appearing elsewhere in insurance paperwork. Unmarried household partners who are neither named insureds nor relatives may need separate coverage despite being identified as drivers on a partner’s policy.
For assigned-claims insurers seeking reimbursement, the opinion also shows that equitable estoppel cannot shift liability without evidence that the injured claimant knew of, relied on, and was prejudiced by the other insurer’s representation.