The No-Fault Act (NFA); Healthcare provider action for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Directed verdict; Applicability of the relation-back doctrine; MCR 2.118(D); Miller v Chapman Contracting; The one-year-back rule (MCL 500.3145)

[In an order, the court granted a motion for reconsideration and vacated its 2/11/25 opinion in this case. A new opinion was attached to the order.] On reconsideration, the court held that defendant-insurer (Home-Owners) was entitled to a directed verdict in this action by plaintiff-healthcare provider (AdvisaCare) to recover PIP benefits. Home-Owners argued that the trial court erred in “denying its motion for a directed verdict because the relation-back doctrine did not apply to” its substitution for defendant-Auto-Owners on 5/3/19 and thus, AdvisaCare “could not recover PIP benefits for attendant care services rendered to” its insureds (C and S) before 5/3/18. Given that “AdvisaCare’s last services were rendered before” that date, Home-Owners contended “that AdvisaCare’s entire recovery was barred by the one-year-back rule.” The court concluded that Home-Owners was “correct that its substitution for Auto-Owners did not relate back to [5/11/18], the date that AdvisaCare filed its complaint against Auto-Owners.” Under Miller, “an amendment that adds a new party does not relate back to the original pleading.” And while “Home-Owners and Auto-Owners have the same parent company, are in the same general business, and share the same resident agent, licensing address, and attorney, they are different corporate entities. Absent an abuse of corporate form, and AdvisaCare has alleged none, the separate corporate identities must be respected.” As a result, “the substitution of Home-Owners added a ‘wholly new and different party’ to the case, and the relation-back doctrine did not apply.” In addition, under “MCL 500.3145(2), a claimant for PIP benefits ‘may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.’ Because Home-Owners’ substitution on [5/3/19], did not relate back to when AdvisaCare commenced the action, and was well over a year after [it] last rendered attendant care services to” C or S in 10/17, “the one-year-back rule barred [its] recovery.” The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Home-Owners’ motion for a directed verdict and remanded for entry of an order granting the motion.