George Eubanks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 330078

On July 8, 2013, George Eubanks was injured as a passenger in a hit-and-run motor-vehicle accident; he had no auto coverage and the vehicle was uninsured.
Eubanks applied for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan; the claim was assigned to State Farm.
Eubanks and co-passenger Patrick Garrett filed suit seeking PIP benefits; several medical providers (Get Well Medical Transport, Advanced Care Rehab, Sinai Diagnostic Group) intervened seeking payment for services to Eubanks.
The trial court dismissed Eubanks’s claim with prejudice after he failed to comply with discovery and failed to appear.
State Farm moved for summary disposition of the intervenors’ claims, arguing those claims were derivative of Eubanks’s and extinguished by the dismissal; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Covenant Med Center, holding healthcare providers lack a statutory cause of action under the no-fault act to sue insurers directly for PIP benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical providers may maintain a statutory cause of action against a no-fault insurer for PIP benefits	Intervenors argued they could directly recover PIP from insurer as courts previously allowed provider suits based on MCL 500.3112	State Farm argued providers have no statutory cause of action and intervenors’ claims are derivative of Eubanks’s claim, so dismissal of his claim with prejudice bars them	Held: Providers have no statutory cause of action under the no-fault act; intervenors’ claims fail as a matter of law (reversal of trial court)

Covenant Med Ctr., 895 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. 2017) (healthcare providers do not have a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for PIP benefits)
Wyoming Chiropractic Health Clinic v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 308 Mich. App. 389 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (court of appeals had allowed direct provider suits against insurers under MCL 500.3112)
Hatcher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 269 Mich. App. 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (recognizing insured’s primary right to PIP benefits)
Dawoud v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 317 Mich. App. 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (summary-disposition standard and procedural posture discussion)
McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (Mich. 2012) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation)