Background
Thelma Melton was injured while driving a vehicle insured under a Progressive Michigan Insurance Company 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 not his spouse or relative.
Progressive denied Melton’s PIP claim, and the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan 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, 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 the order denying reinstatement left nothing for the circuit court to decide, even though the dismissal was without prejudice. Citizens therefore could also challenge the earlier summary-disposition order.
On the merits, Melton was not covered by Progressive under either MCL 500.3114(1) or the policy. She was not a named insured, Baker’s spouse, or his relative, and listing her as an additional driver or as PIP-eligible on the declarations page did not place her within the policy’s definition of an eligible injured person. Equitable estoppel also failed because Progressive made no coverage representation to Melton, she had not seen the declarations page or policy, she paid no premium, and she could not show justifiable reliance.
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, deciding the motion could not have changed the outcome.
Key Takeaways
- A person listed only as an additional driver is not a “person named in the policy” for purposes of Michigan’s no-fault priority statute.
- A declarations-page notation that a driver is eligible for PIP coverage does not override unambiguous policy definitions limiting who qualifies as an eligible injured person.
- Equitable estoppel requires a representation to, and justifiable reliance by, the party claiming coverage; assumptions about coverage are insufficient.
- A court’s failure to decide a timely reconsideration motion may be an abuse of discretion, but reversal is unwarranted when the underlying argument is meritless.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan no-fault priority turns on statutory status and the operative policy language, not merely how a person is described elsewhere in insurance paperwork. Insurers assigned claims through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan cannot shift responsibility to another carrier without showing that the claimant actually qualified for coverage.
It also illustrates the limits of equitable estoppel in insurance disputes: an inaccurate coverage notation alone does not create liability when the claimant neither knew of nor relied on it.