Janet Hauanio v. Alvin Smith, 352441

Plaintiff was injured as a passenger in a vehicle; neither she nor the driver had a no-fault policy. Driver claimed residency with an insured (Progressive), but a separate ruling found driver resided with plaintiff.
Plaintiff initially sought PIP from Progressive; after Progressive moved for summary disposition, plaintiff amended to add MACP/MAIPF seeking assignment or payment of PIP benefits.
MAIPF moved under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (legal insufficiency) and (C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact); trial court held MAIPF is not an insurer and cannot pay PIP but gave plaintiff time to apply to MAIPF so assignment could occur.
Plaintiff filed an application; MAIPF assigned the claim to Farmers, and MAIPF moved to be dismissed; plaintiff moved to amend/substitute Farmers for MAIPF, which the trial court denied as futile and because substitution was improper.
Trial court dismissed MAIPF and closed the case; plaintiff appealed the dismissal and denial of leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MAIPF can be sued for PIP payment after assigning the claim	MAIPF remains liable and plaintiffs may sue MAIPF directly for PIP	MAIPF is not an insurer and only assigns eligible claims to member insurers; it cannot pay PIP	MAIPF is not an insurer; once it assigned the claim to Farmers plaintiff could not pursue payment from MAIPF (affirmed)
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying amendment/substitution to add Farmers	Amending/substituting Farmers relates back; MAIPF and Farmers are effectively the same/privity so plaintiff timely commenced suit	No transfer of interest occurred; substitution under MCR 2.202(B) inappropriate; claim against Farmers is time-barred under the assignment notice/30-day rule and one-year-back rule, so amendment would be futile	Denial affirmed: no transfer/privity to treat them as same party and amendment would be futile because suit against Farmers was time-barred

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (Mich. 1999) (standard for deciding MCR 2.116(C)(8) motions)
Krusac v. Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc., 497 Mich 251 (Mich. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Mich. Head & Spine Inst., PC v. Mich. Assigned Claims Plan, 331 Mich App 262 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019) (plaintiffs may sue MAIPF directly when MAIPF has not assigned a claim)
Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 301 Mich App 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (describing MAIPF as nonprofit administering MACP)
Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 273 Mich App 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (harmless-error/curing an error doctrine)
Lewis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 315 Mich App 202 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (affirmance may stand even if trial court gave incorrect reasons)
Fast Air, Inc. v. Knight, 235 Mich App 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (MCR 2.116(C)(6) requires the other action to be pending at decision time)
Adair v. State, 470 Mich 105 (Mich. 2004) (privity in claim-preclusion context)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (limits and explanation of privity concepts)