No PIP car accident benefits in Ohio

Listen to this article

A man who claimed PIP benefits for an out-of-state car accident was ineligible for benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP), the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The appeals court initially ruled in a published decision in 2022 that the plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because the accident did not occur in Michigan, while the defendants – the MACP and the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF) – They were entitled to summary disposition.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded it for reconsideration to “determine the impact, if any, of MCL 500.3114 on the question of whether plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan.”

On remand, the appeals court overturned again.

“After reviewing our Supreme Court’s direction, we conclude that MCL 500.3114 has no bearing on (plaintiff’s) eligibility to claim benefits through the MACP,” Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett wrote. “We reiterate that MCL 500.3172(1) determines the outcome in this case and requires an individual seeking PIP benefits through the MACP to prove that the accident giving rise to the claim occurred in Michigan. Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an out-of-state accident, making him ineligible for PIP benefits through MACP.”

The case is Steanhouse vs. MAIPF (MiLW 07-107891, 9 pages). Justices Mark J. Cavanagh and Kirsten Frank Kelly agreed with Garrett’s opinion.

Preston M. Denha of Kajy Law Firm in Southfield represented Steanhouse and John D. Ruth of Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle in Bloomfield Hills represented the defendants. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Accident in Ohio

In November 2019, Awning Steanhouse was injured in a car accident in Ohio. In September 2020, he applied for personal protection insurance (PIP) through MACP.

Steanhouse filed suit against MACP and MAIPF after they refused to hire an insurer to pay PIP benefits.

Both MACP and MAIPF filed for summary judgment. To claim PIP benefits through the MACP under MCL 500.3172(1), the accident giving rise to the claim must have occurred in Michigan, they contended. Because there were no genuine factual allegations that Steanhouse’s accident occurred in Ohio, he was ineligible for PIP benefits through the MACP.

In his response, Steanhouse challenged defendants’ interpretation of MCL 500.3172(1). He claimed he was entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111 because he was in an automobile accident in the United States; he was a passenger in a vehicle and was injured; and he was a resident of Michigan.

He added that MCL 500.3113 – which determines who is not eligible for PIP benefits – does not mention out-of-state accidents involving in-state residents.

The defendants claimed that MCL 500.3172 applies here rather than MCL 500.3111 because it relates specifically to the MACP and the MAIPF.

The Wayne Circuit Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, stating: “MCL 500.3172 conflicts with MCL 500.3111 and cannot otherwise be interpreted to deprive Michigan residents of assigned coverage simply because they are in accidents.” were injured in other states.”

The trial court also denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration, stating that it “does not presume that otherwise uninsured Michigan residents will lose their right to MAIPF coverage if they are injured in an accident in another state.”

The first appeal was overturned

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Wayne Circuit Court’s ruling in a decision issued in December 2022 (MiLW 07-106247), finding that MACP and MAIPF should have been granted summary injunction.

“We hold that MCL 500.3172, which governs eligibility for claims filed through the MACP, requires a plaintiff to prove that the accident occurred in Michigan,” Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett wrote. “Because the accident in question occurred in Ohio, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.”

The matter then ended up before the Michigan Supreme Court. Instead of granting leave, the justices overturned the appeals court ruling.

On remand, the Court of Appeals was directed to address the impact, if any, of MCL 500.3114 on the question of whether Steanhouse was entitled to MACP benefits.

Pretrial detention

Prior to the 2019 no-fault changes, MCL 500.3111 stated that benefits were to be paid to “a passenger of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registration holder was insured under a personal injury insurance policy….”

The law now requires PIP benefits to be paid for injuries sustained in an out-of-state accident if “an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident” was a Michigan resident, without regard to an applicable policy.

“So just looking at MCL 500.3111, PIP benefits are payable to Steanhouse because he is a Michigan resident and was injured as a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in an out-of-state accident,” Garrett noted.

But the judge said that didn’t end the investigation. She turned to MCL 500.3114, which defines “against whom a person may assert a benefit claim.”

Amendments to this statute provide for three levels of priority, with MACP being the final one. Steanhouse claimed that he was entitled to PIP benefits through the MACP because they were payable to him under MCL 500.3111 and because MCL 500.3114(4) provided that he “shall claim” them under the MACP.

Garrett said this conclusion skips the final step of the analysis.

“MCL 500.3114(4) indicates that claims for PIP benefits from the MACP are subject to the provisions of MCL 500.3171 through MCL 500.3175. And these legal provisions contain their own eligibility requirements,” she wrote. “So being placed in the order of priority does not automatically mean that the MACP is obligated to pay benefits, nor does it automatically mean that Steanhouse is entitled to benefits in accordance with the requirements of the MACP.”

The Steanhouse I The court held that because MCL 500.3172(1) “requires a plaintiff seeking benefits through the MACP to prove that the accident giving rise to the claim occurred in Michigan,” the defendants were entitled to the claim Steanhouse to reject because the car accident occurred in Ohio.

“Steanhouse challenges this interpretation, arguing that MCL 500.3172(1) has no application to out-of-state accidents; If the accident occurs out of state, MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3114(4) govern eligibility for MACP benefits,” Garrett wrote. “We disagree and confirm our previous interpretation. Pursuant to MCL 500.3172(1), an applicant is not eligible for PIP benefits through the MACP if the applicant’s injury resulted from an out-of-state accident.”

The matter will be remanded to Wayne County for further action.

If you would like to comment on this story, contact Cory Linsner at (email protected).