Opinion
344715
08-30-2021
Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility
LC No. 17-016798-NF
Michael J. Riordan, Brock A. Swartzle Judges.ORDER
Colleen A. O'Brien Presiding Judge.
This matter is before this Court on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court. This Court previously concluded that Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Esurance) could not pursue a claim for reimbursement of monies it erroneously paid to the injured individual, Roshaun Edwards, from the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF) under an equitable subrogation theory. Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v Mich. Assigned Claims Plan, 330 Mich.App. 584; 950 N.W.2d 528 (2019), rev'd ___ Mich. ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (Mich, July 26, 2021) (Docket No. 160592). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Esurance could pursue a claim for equitable subrogation, Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 2, and remanding for this Court to "consider . . . whether defendants can be sued under MCL 500.3174," id. at; slip op at 19. This Court has already decided in Mich Head & Spine Institute, PC v Mich. Assigned Claims Plan, 331 Mich.App. 262, 274; 951 N.W.2d 731 (2019), that "plaintiffs may seek PIP benefits from MAIPF directly" if "MAIPF has not assigned the claim to a servicing insurer." The MAIPF did not assign an insurer to Edwards' claim for PIP benefits, see Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 3, so now Esurance, standing in Edwards' shoes, can pursue his PIP claim against the MAIPF under an equitable subrogation theory, id. at ___; slip op at 2; Mich Head & Spine Institute, PC, 331 Mich.App. at 274.
The only remaining issue is whether equity should compel the MAIPF to reimburse Esurance for the PIP benefits it paid to Edwards. Whether to grant or deny a request for equitable relief is a matter of discretion, which lies with the trial court. See Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 502 Mich. 390, 409-411; 919 N.W.2d 20 (2018). We therefore REMAND this case to the trial court to decide this issue in the first instance. See Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 19 ("If necessary to the proper resolution of this case, the Court of Appeals may remand to the trial court."). We do not retain jurisdiction.