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 identified Melton as a driver eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage, Baker was the named insured, and the policy defined eligible injured persons as the named insured, a resident spouse or relative, or another person meeting Michigan’s statutory requirements. 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 pursued reimbursement from Progressive, arguing that Progressive had priority and 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 rule on Citizens’s timely reconsideration motion or reinstate the action.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that it had appellate jurisdiction because the circuit court’s dismissal and subsequent refusal to reinstate left nothing further to decide, even though the dismissal was without prejudice. Citizens therefore could also challenge the earlier summary-disposition order.
On the merits, the court held that Melton was not eligible for PIP benefits under either MCL 500.3114(1) or Progressive’s policy. Listing her as an additional driver and as eligible for PIP medical-expense coverage did not make her a named insured, spouse, or resident relative. Equitable estoppel also failed because Melton never saw the declarations page, communicated with Progressive, or paid the premium, and no evidence showed that Progressive induced her expectation of coverage or that she relied on a Progressive representation. Citizens, as the assigned insurer, therefore had priority to pay the claim.
The circuit court abused its discretion by declining to decide Citizens’s timely reconsideration motion and then refusing to reinstate the case for that purpose. The error was harmless, however, because the reconsideration motion rested on the same meritless equitable-estoppel theory and 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 language defining who qualifies as an eligible injured person.
- Equitable estoppel requires evidence that the claimant knew of and justifiably relied on the insurer’s representation; an undisclosed representation cannot support reliance.
- A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to exercise discretion on a timely reconsideration motion, but reversal is unwarranted when deciding the motion could not affect the result.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Michigan no-fault priority depends on statutory status and the policy’s operative definitions, not merely how a person is described elsewhere in insurance paperwork. Insurers and assigned-claims carriers should distinguish carefully between a named insured and a listed driver when evaluating PIP responsibility.
It also underscores the evidentiary demands of equitable estoppel in coverage disputes. A mistaken coverage notation or added premium is insufficient unless the person asserting estoppel was induced by the insurer’s representation and actually relied on it to that person’s detriment.