In this case for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits against Progressive Insurance, summary disposition was granted in Progressive’s favor when the Court ruled as a matter of law Progressive was not in the order of priority for payment of PIP benefits. The ruling was predicated on Progressive’s argument that the Progressive was not the “insurer of the owner, operator, or registrant of the motor vehicle involved” in the accident. The claimant, who was not a named insured on the applicable policy (but was listed as an additional driver), owned and operated the vehicle involved in the accident. The Court agreed with Progressive’s argument that the terms of its insurance policy dictated whether or not it could be deemed the “insurer of the owner, registrant, or operator of the motor vehicle involved”. After oral arguments which addressed the language in Progressive’s policy, the Court agreed with Progressive and concluded that, based on its policy language, Progressive was not the “insurer of the owner, registrant, or operator of the motor vehicle involved”.
The ruling resulted in a dismissal of over $640,000 in PIP benefits to date, without considering potential future claims for the claimant.
This matter was handled by partner Neil E. Hansen.
