MBL Obtains Appellate Victory Enforcing “Opt Out”
March 23, 2026
MBL Executive Partner Kaitlyn Cramer and Attorney Kim Cloud recently secured a rare, published opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals that upheld the insured’s selection of $250,000 in PIP limits based on the “reasonable presumption” contained in MCL 500.3107c(3).
The plaintiff, a medical provider, argued that the insured had not completed the proper forms to effectuate the limited selection. However, Cramer pointed out on oral argument that the insured testified she wanted the “cheapest option,” renewed that policy multiple times, and paid reduced premiums consistent with a $250,000 limit – which was also clearly reflected on the declarations page. So, while the forms may not have been proper, there was no evidence Plaintiff could cite to rebut the presumption of reduced coverage. The Court of Appeals agreed, enforcing the policy limit— a significant and favorable outcome for our client, capping their exposure.
The case then presented the novel issue of “stacking” policies when a motorcyclist is injured. Despite not representing the insurer involved in that question, Cramer faced questions by the panel on the significant impact such an interpretation could have. The plaintiff hospital system argued that, if MBL’s client’s limits were exhausted, they should be able to next turn to the injured motorcyclist’s own personal unlimited policy. In essence, while MBL’s client was the priority insurer, the hospital system argued that they should be able to move on to the next level of priority under MCL 500.3114(5) and use the unlimited benefits the patient had for their personal use.
The Court agreed with this argument as well and thereby endorsed “stacking” – the position that if a higher priority insurer under the motorcyclist priority statute has capped benefits, and the damages exceed those benefits, then the injured party can turn to another level of priority for additional benefits. The implications of this portion of the decision remain to be seen. The opinion is currently limited to motorcyclist claims, but insurers should be prepared for its reasoning to be used in alternative contexts.
The full opinion: https://www.courts.michigan.
