Action seeking PIP benefits under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Allstate Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Effect of fraud on an insurance policy; Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co.; Shelton v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.; Whether the misrepresentation was material; Mina v. General Star Indem. Co.; Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Michigan Comm’r of Ins.; A contracting party’s duty to understand the contract; Montgomery v. Fidelity & Guar. Life Ins. Co.; Rescission; Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten; Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of MI v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.; Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright; Hammoud v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.; Whether an insured may seek benefits through the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF); MCL 500.3172(1); MCL 500.3173a(1); MCL 500.3174; MCL 500.3113; Michigan Head & Spine Inst., PC v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan; Retroactivity; Clay v. Doe; WA Foote Mem’l Hosp. v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-insurer (Progressive) summary disposition of defendant’s claim for PIP benefits, but did err by granting defendant-MAIPF’s two motions for summary disposition. Thus, it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiff’s wife sought PIP benefits on his behalf after he was injured in an accident with an unnamed driver. After discovering plaintiff was driving her car with a suspended license when the accident occurred, Progressive declared her policy void. Plaintiff then sought PIP benefits through MAIPF, which did not assign the claim. Plaintiff sued defendants for PIP benefits, but the trial court granted summary disposition for defendants and denied his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for Progressive because the balance of the equities favored allowing him to obtain PIP benefits under his wife’s policy. It found there was no question of material fact that his wife knew her statement on the policy (that she had disclosed all adult members of her household) was false, and that it was material. It concluded that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by holding that the balance of the equities weighed in favor of granting Progressive’s request to rescind the policy.” However, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by granting MAIPF’s summary disposition motions. “[B]ecause the Progressive policy was void ab initio and properly rescinded, and plaintiff’s claim was not obviously ineligible for assignment, plaintiff was entitled to seek assignment of his claim for PIP benefits” through MAIPF. And because the court “has held that a plaintiff may seek PIP benefits from MAIPF if MAIPF declines to assign an otherwise valid claim to a servicing insurer, plaintiff was entitled to seek PIP benefits (as monetary damages) directly from MAIPF if it failed to assign his valid claim.”