Michigan PIP Benefits Available Despite Policy Exclusion
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently published an opinion which arose from a claim under the Michigan No-Fault Act. A motor vehicle accident took place between vehicles driven by Plaintiff Muzafer Isovska and Defendant Leana Fitspatrick. The issue was which of the two (2) auto insurance policies covering the Plaintiff and her daughter provided coverage.
The Plaintiff was driving a Ford Focus when the motor vehicle accident took place. Plaintiff was the named insured under an auto insurance policy with the USA Underwriters (USAU) and the vehicle insured under that policy was a Toyota Yaris. Plaintiff’s daughter was a resident-relative of the Plaintiff and she had an auto insurance policy with Progressive Insurance Company. Plaintiff’s daughter was listed as the named insured on that policy and the Ford Focus involved in the subject-accident was the insured vehicle under the Progressive policy.
After the subject-accident, Plaintiff made a claim for No-Fault benefits. USAU denied coverage on the basis that the Ford Focus was not a listed vehicle on the USAU policy. After an investigation by Progressive, Progressive informed Plaintiff’s daughter that there would be no coverage for any claims arising from the subject-accident and the auto insurance policy was rescinded due to fraud and/or misrepresentation. Progressive stated this was because Plaintiff’s daughter failed to inform Progressive that she was living with her mother, the Plaintiff. Plaintiff ultimately filed a lawsuit seeking uninsured (UM), underinsured (UIM), and PIP benefits against USAU, Progressive, and the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP).
USAU claimed that certain exclusions permitted a denial of Plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits. Specifically, Exclusion D excluded coverage for bodily injury for “a motor vehicle… that is not an insured motor vehicle.” The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled USAU’s policy exclusions were in direct conflict with the Michigan No-Fault Act. The No-Fault Act states that an injured person’s personal no-fault insurer bears the responsibility for PIP benefits regardless of whether its policy covers the motor vehicle involved, or if the vehicle involved is covered by another policy. As a result, despite USAU’s policy exclusions which were used as a basis to deny coverage to the Plaintiff, the Court of Appeals ruled USAU may remain liable for Plaintiff’s claimed PIP benefits.
Read entire case at:
Isovska v. Fitzpatrick
About Alexander & Angelas, P.C.
Attorney Peter A. Angelas represents defendants in civil liability litigation across Michigan. His practice areas include insurance defense litigation, premises liability, motor carrier (trucking) defense, corporate and commercial litigation, construction defect litigation, auto negligence, insurance coverage disputes, emergency casualty response services, alternative dispute resolution, subrogation claims, workers’ compensation, employment law, and liquor liability.
Mr. Angelas practices in all state and federal courts in Michigan, including Wayne County (Detroit), Macomb County (Mount Clemens), Oakland County (Pontiac), Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), and Genesee County (Flint).
A 24/7 Emergency Hotline is available (800-219-0007) for trucking and insurance company clients. When an accident requires an immediate response to protect evidence, members of the firm quickly launch an investigation with the assistance of well-qualified accident investigators, crash re-constructionists, mechanical engineers, civil evidence photographers, and independent adjusters positioned throughout Michigan.
