Action for PIP benefits for services rendered by medical providers; Effect of an assignment; Real party in interest; Party substitution; MCR 2.202(B); MCL 500.3112; Public policy

Holding that the trial court erred in denying defendants-insurers’ “motion for partial summary disposition of plaintiff’s action for recovery of PIP benefits for services rendered by medical providers to whom plaintiff had granted assignments because she was no longer the real party in interest[,]” the court reversed and remanded. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which plaintiff and her minor children were injured. The court concluded that after she executed assignments to various medical providers of her right to PIP benefits from defendants, “the medical providers became the real parties in interest, and only the medical providers had the ability to enforce the acquired rights.” However, she “may still pursue her claim against defendants for services rendered by” one provider because she assigned “this provider her right to collect PIP benefits from defendants after she filed” this action. She filed the complaint on 11/18/19, and assigned to that provider her right to collect PIP benefits from defendants almost a month later. No “motions for substitution or joinder were made, and the trial court did not direct plaintiff to be made a party in another capacity.” Thus, under the plain language of MCR 2.202(B), she may still pursue her claim against defendants for services rendered by that provider. The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that “application of MCL 500.3112 effectively precludes summary disposition.” Although she correctly noted that “a health care provider may assert a direct cause of action against an insurer, and MCL 500.3112 insulates insurers from the threat of double payment for services rendered, MCL 500.3112 does not address the legal effect of an assignment on an insured’s ability to collect benefits that were the subject of an assignment.” Lastly, the court rejected her public policy argument.