In Griffin v Trumbull Insurance Company, et al, ___ Mich App ___ (9/24/20), the Michigan Court of Appeals was presented with an appeal that involved a motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiff, Willie Griffin, crashed his motorcycle while attempting to avoid a truck. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to Trumbull Insurance Company and the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. The trial court held that Trumbull was not the highest-priority no-fault insurer pursuant to MCL 500.3114(5), because another insurer, Harleysville Insurance Company, was identified after the lawsuit was commenced. Additionally, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the MACP because there was no dispute between two or more insurers in light of Harleysville being identified as the insurer in highest priority and not being a party to the lawsuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s findings, first noting some relevant facts. At the scene, the police obtained the truck driver’s name, phone number, and residential address. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the truck driver indicating Plaintiff’s intent to pursue legal action. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the truck driver to forward this letter to his insurance company, but did not otherwise request the truck driver’s communication or contact in any way. Plaintiff also notified his motor vehicle insurer, Trumbull, of the accident, but Trumbull refused to pay PIP benefits. Trumbull attempted to locate the truck driver, but could not do so despite multiple phone calls and visits to his residence. Eleven months after the accident, Plaintiff retained MEA Research Services to identify the truck driver’s insurance provider, but to no avail. Plaintiff failed to take additional actions to communicate with the truck driver in order to identify his insurance provider, or the insurance provider of the truck he drove on the date of the accident. Plaintiff then filed his complaint for PIP benefits against Trumbull and the MACP to assign his claim to an insurer.
After Plaintiff filed suit, Trumbull subpoenaed the truck driver who appeared for a deposition within one month leading to a determination that the insurer of the truck at the time of the accident was Harleysville. Trumbull moved for summary disposition relying upon MCL 500.3114(5)(a) to assert that it was not required to pay PIP benefits. The MACP moved for summary disposition asserting that Plaintiff was insured by Trumbull at the time of the accident and that there was no dispute between two insurers.
The Court of Appeals majority rejected Plaintiff’s reliance upon Borgess Med Ctr v Resto, 273 Mich App 558; 730 NW2d 738 (2007) and Frierson v West American Ins Co, 261 Mich App 732; 683 NW2d 695 (2004) to contend that Trumbull was the insurer in priority and thus responsible for Plaintiff’s PIP benefits. The Court noted that Frierson called for a binary analysis asking only whether a higher-priority insurer is or is not identifiable and in this case, the higher-priority insurer – Harleysville – could be and in fact was identified. The Court found the trial court erred to the extent it considered whether Harleysville could have been identified with “reasonable diligence”, but found the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason.
The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that if Trumbull was not responsible for his PIP benefits, then a priority dispute between two or more automobile insurers concerning their obligation to provide coverage would arise, requiring the MACP to assign Plaintiff’s claim. The Court found that no “dispute” under MCL 500.3172(3) existed in this case because Harleysville was not a party to the lawsuit and so could not disagree with Trumbull’s assertion that Harleysville is the insurer of the highest priority, and there was no evidence that Harleysville refused to pay PIP benefits to Plaintiff.
Finally, the Court refused to grant sanctions against Trumbull for failing to affirmatively disclose its failure to locate the truck driver finding that Trumbull did not mislead the trial court regarding its attempt to identify the truck driver’s insurer. The Court also found Trumbull’s failed efforts to contact the truck driver was irrelevant because Harleysville was identified.
Judge Ronayne Krause concurred with the majority’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the MACP, but dissented from the majority’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Trumbull. Judge Ronayne Krause believed that Trumbull chose to investigate whether a higher-priority insurer existed and thus was required to conduct that investigation competently and thoroughly. This obligation meant Trumbull’s inability to identify Harleysville should be conclusive as to whether Harleysville was able to be identified within one year of the accident. Moreover, Plaintiff could reasonably rely upon that investigation. Finally, while Plaintiff could have commenced his lawsuit sooner, and subpoenaed the truck driver himself, this would have contravened the purpose of the no-fault act to make benefit payments simple and straightforward and reducing litigation.