MCL 500.3157(7); Application of the preamended version of the fee schedule; Demske v Fick; Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Pena

Finding no errors warranting reversal, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants-insurance companies summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Plaintiff sought “reimbursement from defendants for the medical services plaintiff provided to” defendants’ insured (nonparty-M). Plaintiff argued “the trial court erred when it concluded that the fee schedule set forth in MCL 500.3157(7) applied to [M’s] insurance policy because, according to plaintiff, the preamended version of the statute applied to her accident.” The court found that its decision in Demske was dispositive. It noted that the policy here was issued on 2/6/20, and the motor vehicle collision occurred on 2/18/20. M’s “rights to claim benefits under the no-fault act, therefore, vested at the time of her motor vehicle collision on [2/18/20]. Because her injuries occurred after the amended no-fault act took effect, and because her insurance policy explicitly provided the policy was governed under the amended version of the no-fault act, the amended statute applied.” And the court held that “because the amended version applies, the fee schedules contained in MCL 500.3157 also apply.” Plaintiff’s reliance on Pena was misplaced. There, the court “held that preamendment liability limits applied to the plaintiff’s accident because, under the applicable statutory language, the new limits only applied to policies ‘issued or renewed’” after 7/1/20. It found that no “such limiting language appears in MCL 500.3157 and, accordingly, Pena is inapplicable.”