Background
Thelma Melton was injured while driving a vehicle insured by Progressive Michigan Insurance Company 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—not Melton—was the named insured. After the accident, Progressive denied Melton’s claim because she was neither a named insured nor Baker’s spouse or relative.
Melton sought benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, which assigned her claim to Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest. Citizens then brought a third-party claim against Progressive for reimbursement and declaratory relief, arguing that Progressive was responsible for the benefits or was equitably estopped from denying coverage. The circuit court granted summary disposition to Progressive. It later dismissed the remaining case without prejudice after the parties failed to appear for trial and denied Citizens’ request to reinstate the action.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals first held that it had jurisdiction. Although the circuit court dismissed the remaining matter without prejudice, nothing remained for that court to decide, and its dismissal and subsequent refusal to reinstate the case constituted final orders. Citizens therefore could also challenge the earlier summary-disposition order.
On the merits, the court held that Melton was not entitled to PIP benefits under either MCL 500.3114(1) or Progressive’s policy. She was not a named insured, Baker’s spouse, or Baker’s relative, and listing her as a driver who was eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage did not make her an eligible injured person under the policy. The court also rejected equitable estoppel because Progressive made no coverage representation to Melton, she never saw the declarations page or policy, and she could not show justifiable reliance.
The court concluded that Citizens, as the assigned insurer, had priority to pay Melton’s claim. Although the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to decide Citizens’ timely reconsideration motion, the error was harmless because the motion rested on the same meritless equitable-estoppel theory. The court therefore affirmed.
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 stating that a driver is eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage does not override policy terms defining who qualifies as an eligible injured person.
- Equitable estoppel requires a representation to, and justifiable reliance by, the party claiming estoppel; an insured’s undisclosed policy documents and premium payments did not establish those elements for Melton.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that PIP priority turns on the no-fault statute and the policy’s operative coverage definitions, not merely on how a person is described elsewhere in the insurance paperwork. Assigned-claims insurers seeking reimbursement must establish that another policy actually applied to the injured person.
The opinion also confirms that a dismissal without prejudice can support an appeal of right when nothing remains for the trial court to resolve, while illustrating that a trial court’s failure to decide a timely motion may be deemed harmless when the underlying argument could not change the outcome.