insurers to pay claim in Michigan

2000Had plaintiff done so, a different result may have obtained. [Id. at 600.] Thus, this Court implied that had the issue been presented, it might have found Farm Bureau under a continuing obligation to provide the plaintiff assigned-claims benefits, while permitting it to seek reimbursement from the higher priority insurer. 5 See generally Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982): [W]e note that whenever a priority question arises between two insurers, the preferred method of resolution is for one of the insurers to pay the claim and sue the o

2000Had plaintiff done so, a different result may have obtained. [Id. at 600.] Thus, this Court implied that had the issue been presented, it might have found Farm Bureau under a continuing obligation to provide the plaintiff assigned-claims benefits, while permitting it to seek reimbursement from the higher priority insurer. 5 See generally Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982): [W]e note that whenever a priority question arises between two insurers, the preferred method of resolution is for one of the insurers to pay the claim and sue the o

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2022See also Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 61 ; 404 NW2d 199 (1987); Walega v Walega, 312 Mich App 259, 266 ; 877 NW2d 910 (2015); Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 228 ; 611 NW2d 333 (2000). 8 Following a motor vehicle accident, MCL 500.3114 4 instructs a person to pursue his or her “claim” for PIP benefits from insurers according to the listed order of priority.

2022See also Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 61 ; 404 NW2d 199 (1987); Walega v Walega, 312 Mich App 259, 266 ; 877 NW2d 910 (2015); Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 228 ; 611 NW2d 333 (2000). 8 Following a motor vehicle accident, MCL 500.3114 4 instructs a person to pursue his or her “claim” for PIP benefits from insurers according to the listed order of priority.

2022When reaffirming an insurer’s right to equitable subrogation last term, we observed that [t]he no-fault act is “a comprehensive scheme of compensation designed to provide sure and speedy recovery of certain economic losses resulting from motor vehicle accidents.” For that reason, “whenever a priority question arises between two insurers, the preferred method of resolution is for one of the insurers to pay the claim and sue the other in an action of [equitable] subrogation.” [Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 507 Mich 498 , 517; 968 NW2d 482 (2021) (alterations in original

2022When reaffirming an insurer’s right to equitable subrogation last term, we observed that [t]he no-fault act is “a comprehensive scheme of compensation designed to provide sure and speedy recovery of certain economic losses resulting from motor vehicle accidents.” For that reason, “whenever a priority question arises between two insurers, the preferred method of resolution is for one of the insurers to pay the claim and sue the other in an action of [equitable] subrogation.” [Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v Mich Assigned Claims Plan, 507 Mich 498 , 517; 968 NW2d 482 (2021) (alterations in original

2022See also Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 61 ; 404 NW2d 199 (1987); Walega v Walega, 312 Mich App 259, 266 ; 877 NW2d 910 (2015); Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 228 ; 611 NW2d 333 (2000). 8 Following a motor vehicle accident, MCL 500.3114 4 instructs a person to pursue his or her “claim” for PIP benefits from insurers according to the listed order of priority.

2022See also Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 61 ; 404 NW2d 199 (1987); Walega v Walega, 312 Mich App 259, 266 ; 877 NW2d 910 (2015); Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 228 ; 611 NW2d 333 (2000). 8 Following a motor vehicle accident, MCL 500.3114 4 instructs a person to pursue his or her “claim” for PIP benefits from insurers according to the listed order of priority.

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2000This resolution permits the insured person to receive prompt payment while the insurers thereafter dispute their liabilities. [Citation omitted.] 6 This Court in Hunt merely observed that the plaintiff, who had received assigned-claims benefits from the defendant Citizens, could not sue Allstate, a higher priority insurer, because “[t]he fact that Hunt, in the exercise of due diligence, could not or did not identify Allstate as the appropriate insurer is not enough to toll the period of limitation as to Allstate.” Hunt, supra at 666 . 7 To the extent that defendant continues its argument to th