Priority disputes for providers

The order of priority

MCL 500.3114 and 500.3115 decide whose policy pays. The basic order:

1. The patient’s own policy, or a policy of a spouse or a relative living in the same household (MCL 500.3114(1)).
2. Special vehicle rules. Employees in an employer-furnished vehicle claim from that vehicle’s insurer (MCL 500.3114(3)). Occupants of vehicles used in the business of transporting passengers generally claim from that vehicle’s insurer, with exceptions (MCL 500.3114(2)). Motorcyclists hurt in a crash with a motor vehicle claim first from the insurer of the vehicle’s owner or registrant, then its operator, then the motorcyclist’s own auto insurer, then the motorcycle owner’s (MCL 500.3114(5)).
3. The Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. Since the 2019 reform, an occupant with no household policy, and a pedestrian or cyclist with none, claims through the assigned claims plan rather than the insurer of the vehicle involved (MCL 500.3114(4) and 500.3115).

The last change catches many billing offices. For crashes after the 2019 amendments, the insurer of the car that hit an uninsured pedestrian is often not the right payer. Disputes also turn on facts the provider does not control: where the patient actually lived, who owned the car, whether a policy was rescinded, and whether the patient opted out of PIP. See which insurer pays for the patient-side view.

How the assigned claims plan handles insurer disputes

MCL 500.3172(1)(c) makes a person eligible through the plan when a dispute between insurers over coverage or how to divide the loss prevents identifying the applicable PIP coverage. When insurers cannot agree on voluntary payment, MCL 500.3172(6) sets the process:

1. The disputing insurers or the claimant promptly notify the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF).
2. The facility assigns the claim to an insurer, which must pay the claimant immediately.
3. The assigned insurer sues in circuit court on the facility’s behalf, joining each disputing insurer.
4. The court declares who owes what and orders reimbursement of benefits, costs, attorney fees and interest.

Insurers do not always invoke this process. In practice, a provider often has to force the issue by suing every potentially liable insurer and, where appropriate, the plan.

Provider claims through the plan

MCL 500.3112 lets a provider make a claim and sue “under the assigned claims plan” to recover overdue benefits for its treatment. Three rules control those claims:

Except for claims routed to the plan because insurers dispute priority, plan benefits are also reduced by benefits available from other sources for the same loss, with Medicare and Medicaid’s medically indigent program excluded from that offset (MCL 500.3172(5)). An assigned insurer cannot take extra time beyond 30 days after reasonable proof to investigate eligibility; the Court of Appeals rejected that in Bronson Health Care Group v. Titan Insurance (2016).

For the patient-side rules, see the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan.

Priority and rescission together

Priority fights often start when an insurer rescinds for application fraud. If rescission holds against the patient, the plan or another household policy may become first in line. In Reese v. Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (unpublished, July 15, 2026), the court refused to extend rescission to the injured pedestrian or the hospital that treated her, so the original insurer remained responsible for those claims. Because the outcome is uncertain, protect both claims at once. See rescission suits that name providers.

A provider’s priority checklist

• Get the patient’s own, spouse’s and household relatives’ auto policies at intake, not only the policy on the car involved.
• Record whether the patient was a driver, passenger, pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist, and whose vehicle it was.
• When any insurer disputes priority, send the MAIPF notice at once if the one-year window is still open.
• Bill every potentially liable insurer with written notice of your claim under MCL 500.3112.
• Sue all of them together before the oldest charges reach the one-year-back line.

Sources: MCL 500.3112, 500.3114, 500.3115, 500.3107c, 500.3145, 500.3172 and 500.3174; 2019 PA 21; Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v Titan Ins Co, 314 Mich App 577 (2016); Reese v Citizens United Reciprocal Exch (Mich App, unpublished, July 15, 2026).