Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c (2026)

Personal protection insurance benefits; coverage limits for allowable expenses; form; rebuttable presumption; application of coverage selection; stacking of insurance policies; applicability to transportation network company vehicle; rider for attendant care.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956


Act 218 of 1956


500.3107c Personal protection insurance benefits; coverage limits for allowable expenses; form; rebuttable presumption; application of coverage selection; stacking of insurance policies; applicability to transportation network company vehicle; rider for attendant care.

Sec. 3107c.

    (1) Except as provided in sections 3107d and 3109a, and subject to subsection (5), for an insurance policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) and is issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the applicant or named insured shall, in a way required under section 3107e and on a form approved by the director, select 1 of the following coverage levels for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a):

    (a) A limit of $50,000.00 per individual per loss occurrence for any personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a). The selection of a limit under this subdivision is only available to an applicant or named insured if both of the following apply:

    (i) The applicant or named insured is enrolled in Medicaid, as that term is defined in section 3157.

    (ii) The applicant's or named insured's spouse and any relative of either who resides in the same household has qualified health coverage, as that term is defined in section 3107d, is enrolled in Medicaid, or has coverage for the payment of benefits under section 3107(1)(a) from an insurer that provides the security required by section 3101(1).

    (b) A limit of $250,000.00 per individual per loss occurrence for any personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a).

    (c) A limit of $500,000.00 per individual per loss occurrence for any personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a).

    (d) No limit for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a).

    (2) The form required under subsection (1) must do all of the following:

    (a) State, in a conspicuous manner, the benefits and risks associated with each coverage option.

    (b) Provide a way for the applicant or named insured to mark the form to acknowledge that he or she has read the form and understands the options available.

    (c) Allow the applicant or named insured to mark the form to make the selection of coverage level under subsection (1).

    (d) Require the applicant or named insured to sign the form.

    (3) If an insurance policy is issued or renewed as described in subsection (1) and the applicant or named insured has not made an effective selection under subsection (1) but a premium or premium installment has been paid, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the premium or installment paid accurately reflects the level of coverage applicable to the policy under subsection (1).

    (4) If an insurance policy is issued or renewed as described in subsection (1), the applicant or named insured has not made an effective selection under subsection (1), and a presumption under subsection (3) does not apply, subsection (1)(d) applies to the policy.

    (5) The coverage level selected under subsection (1) applies to the named insured, the named insured's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, and any other person with a right to claim personal protection insurance benefits under the policy.

    (6) If benefits are payable under section 3107(1)(a) under 2 or more insurance policies, the benefits are only payable up to an aggregate coverage limit that equals the highest available coverage limit under any 1 of the policies.

    (7) This section applies for a transportation network company vehicle, but an applicant or named insured that is a transportation network company shall only select limits under either subsection (1)(b), (c), or (d). As used in this subsection:

    (a) "Transportation network company" means that term as defined in section 2 of the limousine, taxicab, and transportation network company act, 2016 PA 345, MCL 257.2102.

    (b) "Transportation network company vehicle" means that term as defined in section 3114.

    (8) An insurer shall offer, for a policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) to which a limit under subsection (1)(a) to (c) applies, a rider that will provide coverage for attendant care in excess of the applicable limit.

History: Add. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019 ;-- Add. 2019, Act 22, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019

Compiler's Notes:

    MCL 500.3107c was added by 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22. 2019 PA 22, being substantively the same as 2019 PA 21 and enacted after 2019 PA 21, becomes the only version on its effective date.

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 59× “At issue is MCL 500.3107c (added by 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22 ) and MCL 500.”
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 43× “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 25× “Specifically, plaintiff argued that Tanner, in procuring insurance coverage for her vehicle, had failed to make an “effective selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed Esurance to…”
Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v. Esurance Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 19× “ANALYSIS At issue in this appeal is MCL 500.3107c, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in [MCL 500.”
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins Co v. Est. of Sonya Maria Fortin (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “In Bronson Health Care Group, this Court addressed MCL 500.3107c, which the Legislature amended “so that insurers may now offer less-than unlimited PIP coverage, provided certain statutory requirements are satisfied.”
Tiffany Carroll v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS, NO-FAULT ACT In 2019, MCL 500.3107c and 3107d were added to the no-fault act and MCL 500.”
Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “] MCL 500.3107c provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in sections 3107d and 3109a, and subject to subsection (5), for an insurance policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) and is issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the applicant…”
Progressive Marathon Ins. Co. v. John Michael Pena (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Indeed, MCL 500.3107c, 500.3107d, 500.3109a, and 500.”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). · cites it 6× “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). · cites it 6× “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
Thomas Tarhanich v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “00;9 (3) $250,000.00 with exclusions;10 (4) $250,000.”
Northland Radiology Inc v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “For example, MCL 500.3107c authorizes an applicant or named insured to select PIP medical coverage limits of $50,000, $250,000, $500,000, or unlimited.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1) — 11 cases
Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “At issue is MCL 500.3107c (added by 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22 ) and MCL 500.”
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v. Esurance Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “ANALYSIS At issue in this appeal is MCL 500.3107c, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in [MCL 500.”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1)(a) — 5 cases
Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v. Esurance Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “ANALYSIS At issue in this appeal is MCL 500.3107c, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in [MCL 500.”
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins Co v. Est. of Sonya Maria Fortin (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In Bronson Health Care Group, this Court addressed MCL 500.3107c, which the Legislature amended “so that insurers may now offer less-than unlimited PIP coverage, provided certain statutory requirements are satisfied.”
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
Thomas Tarhanich v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “00;9 (3) $250,000.00 with exclusions;10 (4) $250,000.”
Graziella Bruner v. Alisha Danielle Caldwell (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v. Esurance Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “ANALYSIS At issue in this appeal is MCL 500.3107c, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in [MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1)(b) — 13 cases
Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] MCL 500.3107c provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in sections 3107d and 3109a, and subject to subsection (5), for an insurance policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) and is issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the applicant…”
David Wells Jr v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Michigan Head & Spine Inst. Pc v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
Graziella Bruner v. Alisha Danielle Caldwell (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1)(c) — 2 cases
Thomas Tarhanich v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “00;9 (3) $250,000.00 with exclusions;10 (4) $250,000.”
Graziella Bruner v. Alisha Danielle Caldwell (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(1)(d) — 9 cases
Northland Radiology Inc v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “For example, MCL 500.3107c authorizes an applicant or named insured to select PIP medical coverage limits of $50,000, $250,000, $500,000, or unlimited.”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
Ellen M Andary v. Usaa Cas. Ins. Co. (Mich. 2023). “At the latest, these amendments apply to those individuals who were injured while covered by an insurance policy issued after July 1, 2020, that incorporated the 24 The dissent cites MCL 500.3107c(1) as evidence that “[w]hen the Legislature wanted to limit the reforms to future…”
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins Co v. Est. of Sonya Maria Fortin (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In Bronson Health Care Group, this Court addressed MCL 500.3107c, which the Legislature amended “so that insurers may now offer less-than unlimited PIP coverage, provided certain statutory requirements are satisfied.”
Am. Physio LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(2) — 1 case
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(2)(a) — 1 case
Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Ctr. v. Esurance Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “ANALYSIS At issue in this appeal is MCL 500.3107c, which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in [MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(3) — 6 cases
Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “At issue is MCL 500.3107c (added by 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22 ) and MCL 500.”
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Specifically, plaintiff argued that Tanner, in procuring insurance coverage for her vehicle, had failed to make an “effective selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed Esurance to…”
Tiffany Carroll v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS, NO-FAULT ACT In 2019, MCL 500.3107c and 3107d were added to the no-fault act and MCL 500.”
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins Co v. Est. of Sonya Maria Fortin (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “In Bronson Health Care Group, this Court addressed MCL 500.3107c, which the Legislature amended “so that insurers may now offer less-than unlimited PIP coverage, provided certain statutory requirements are satisfied.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(4) — 3 cases
Angerica L Downer v. USA Underwriters (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “These changes included the addition of MCL 500.3107c, which eliminated mandatory unlimited PIP coverage and allows Michigan insureds to choose a limited level of PIP coverage for a lower premium.”
Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “At issue is MCL 500.3107c (added by 2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22 ) and MCL 500.”
Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Specifically, plaintiff argued that Tanner, in procuring insurance coverage for her vehicle, had failed to make an “effective selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed Esurance to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(5) — 4 cases
Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Specifically, plaintiff argued that Tanner, in procuring insurance coverage for her vehicle, had failed to make an “effective selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed Esurance to…”
Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “] MCL 500.3107c provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Except as provided in sections 3107d and 3109a, and subject to subsection (5), for an insurance policy that provides the security required under section 3101(1) and is issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the applicant…”
Neal J Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3107c(6) — 1 case
Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Specifically, plaintiff argued that Tanner, in procuring insurance coverage for her vehicle, had failed to make an “effective selection” of the $250,000 coverage limit as required under MCL 500.3107c. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed Esurance to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.