Court of Appeals Holds That the Policy Can Give, but Not Take Away, PIP Benefits

For a “mandated coverage” such as PIP benefits, “it is the no-fault act itself” that controls. Mapp v Progressive, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359889); slip op at 10. However, “it is permissible for an insurance policy to provide for broader coverage than is required by statute, in which case the policy may be enforced as written.” Id. 

Therefore, “while a no-fault insurer must provide at the least the minimum coverage required by the statute (i.e., for relatives domiciled in a named insured’s household), it may provide coverage for a broader group of persons (e.g., for relatives residing in a named insured’s household).” Id. at ___; slip op at 11-12.

To access the full article, click here: https://bit.ly/3AWFd8s