Action seeking PIP benefits under the No-Fault Act; Insurer priority; MCL 500.3114; The one-year back rule; MCL 500.3145(1); Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; Identifying the highest-priority insurer; MCL 500.3114(5); Borgess Med. Ctr. v. Resto; Frierson v. West Am. Ins. Co.; Principle that the appellate court will not reverse where the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason; Lane v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs., Inc.; Obtaining PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP); MCL 500.3172(3); Spectrum Health Hosp. v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan; Sanctions under MCR 1.109(E)(5)-(7)

The court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s no-fault action against defendants-insurer (Trumbull) and MACP. Plaintiff was injured when he tried to avoid a merging truck and crashed his motorcycle. After unsuccessfully attempting to determine the truck driver’s insurer, he notified Trumbull (the insurer of his motor vehicles), which refused to pay PIP benefits. It also failed to determine the truck driver’s insurer, and closed its investigation. Plaintiff then sued defendants seeking PIP benefits from Trumbull and asking MACP to assign his claim to an insurer. Trumbull eventually determined the truck driver’s insurer (non-party-Harleysville) and identified it as the highest priority insurer. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court’s ruling that Harleysville was identifiable as the highest-priority insurer had he acted with reasonable diligence, and thus that his claim against Trumbull must be dismissed, was erroneous. “[D]ue to the simple fact that Harleysville was identifiable, the general rule does not apply and plaintiff cannot collect PIP benefits from Trumbull, because Harleysville was a higher-priority insurer.” Thus, although the trial court “erred to the extent it considered whether Harleysville could have been identified with ‘reasonable diligence,’ [it] still reached the right result for the wrong reason.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that because this case involved a priority dispute between two insurers the MACP should have assigned an insurer to pay his PIP benefits. “[A]ny disagreement between Harleysville and Trumbull is purely academic and theoretical, as no claim ever was made against Harleysville. Harleysville has not actually disagreed, and given its status as a non-party, could not disagree, with Trumbull’s argument in this case that Harleysville is the highest-priority insurer and that it should provide PIP benefits to plaintiff. Accordingly, because there is not an actual dispute between two or more insurers, applying MCL 500.3172(3)’s clear and unambiguous language as written . . . subsection (3) simply does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the trial court should have sanctioned Trumbull for failing to affirmatively disclose its failure to locate the truck driver, noting Trumbull did not mislead the trial court and its “failed efforts to contact the truck driver were irrelevant.” Affirmed.