In the matter of Elias v Great American, et al., Court of Appeals Docket 370595, Shareholder, Mark Nawrocki of Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle, PC successfully argued on behalf of Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, the MACP assigned servicing insurer.
Plaintiff/Appellant, Kousay Elias was operating a semi-truck without a trailer (a/k/a/ bobtail semi) on northbound I-75, awaiting a telephone call from his employer to determine if he had another load to pick up or park the vehicle at the yard. The semi-truck was owned by LI Trucking, Michigan company, and registered and titled in Michigan and garaged in Warren, Michigan; however, it was leased to Hunter Express, which is a Texas Company and insured with a Texas policy through Knight Specialty Insurance Company. Great American Assurance Company provided bobtail coverage.
On January 18, 2020, due to icy conditions, Elias was operating the semi-truck and slid off the highway on to the shoulder. It was towed back on to the highway and Elias continued to drive the vehicle to the yard.
Just shy of a year later, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to Great American Insurance Company regarding the claim. Two days later, on the one-year anniversary of the accident, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to Trisura Specialty Insurance Company and Hunter Express. On the same day, an application for benefits was filed with the MAIPF. During the litigation, Plaintiff’s attorney stipulated to dismiss Great American and Trisura as Defendants.
Elias informed the MAIPF that he resided with his sister and brother-in-law at the time of the accident. Through discovery it was determined that Elias’s sister was insured with Progressive. MAIPF filed a third-party complaint against Progressive and Knight Specialty Insurance, seeking a declaration of rights and duties of the interested parties. MAIPF argued that Progressive was higher in priority pursuant to resident relative coverage under MCL 500.3114(1) and that Knight was higher in priority as it insured the employer furnished vehicle under MCL 500.3114(3). MAIPF also sought reformation of Knight’s Texas policy to provide Michigan No-Fault benefits. Thereafter, Elias amended his Complaint and added a count against Progressive and Knight.
The trial court reformed Knight’s policy to provide Michigan coverage. Thereafter, all parties filed dispositive motions. MAIPF argued there was higher priority insurance, Progressive argued that it did not receive notice within a year and Knight argued that it did not receive notice within a year and Elias was an independent contractor, thus Knight was not in the priority of insurance. All dispositive motions were all granted and the case dismissed. Elias appealed.
On appeal, Elias argued that Knight was not easily identifiable within a year, he made a good faith effort to notify responsible insurers, and that Citizens failed to pay the claim within 30 days. The Court of Appeals relied on Griffin v Trumbull, 509 Mich 484 (2002), and held that “Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to identify them [Progressive and Knight] and notify them of his claims” and that they were both easily identifiable within a year of the accident. Because there was easily identifiable insurance, Elias could not proceed against Citizens/MAIPF pursuant to MCL 500.3172(1)(b). The Court stated that while there could have been a priority dispute between two insurers, Progressive and Knight, Elias did not exercise due diligence to timely notify either. For the same reason, the Court concluded that Citizens/MAIPF was not responsible to provide no-fault benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary disposition and concluded by stating that “Plaintiff is not eligible for benefits from any defendant or third-party defendant.”