Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Center v. Progressive Marathon Ins Co

── Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Center v. Progressive Marathon Ins Co ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN AMBULATORY SURGICAL UNPUBLISHED CENTER and PHASE ONE REHAB, Assignees of May 18, 2026 JAMERESHA CAMPBELL, 1:44 PM Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 373314 Macomb Circuit Court PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE LC No. 2023-001854-NF COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and GARRETT and ACKERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. This action to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits was brought by plaintiffs Michigan Ambulatory Surgical Center and Phase One Rehab, alleging that they provided treatment to a patient, Jameresha Campbell,1 arising out of a July 2021 motor vehicle accident and that defendant Progressive Marathon Insurance Company (Progressive) was the no-fault insurance carrier responsible for payment of those expenses. Defendant moved the trial court for summary disposition because Campbell was not a named insured on the subject policy of insurance, a fact not disputed by plaintiffs, and because Campbell was also not a resident relative under the policy because the named insured, Cindy Wells2 testified that she was not living with Campbell at the time of the accident, i.e., she was not domiciled at the Redford address at that time. Plaintiffs 1 We note that, during an examination under oath (EUO) conducted by defendant, plaintiffs’ patient testified that her last name is spelled Camp-Bell; however, because her name is spelled Campbell throughout the lower court record, and because she is not a party in this case, we will refer to her as Campbell in order to avoid confusion. 2 The parties indicate that Wells’s last name at the inception of the policy was Campbell, but that she subsequently changed her name. In this opinion, again to avoid confusion, we will refer to her as Wells. -1- argued that a question of fact remained on the issue of domicile because Campbell testified under oath that Wells lived with her at the time of the accident, at an address in Redford, and because the declaration page of Wells’s policy (the policy) likewise listed the Redford address. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that Campbell’s deposition testimony, the insurance policy, and Wells’s deposition testimony all create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of domicile in this matter, and that the trial court therefore erred in its ruling. We agree. We reverse the order granting summary disposition and remand to the trial court. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs filed a complaint in June 2023 in Macomb County Circuit Court alleging in relevant part, that: they provided medical treatment to Campbell arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle; defendant was the no-fault insurance carrier that was first in order of priority for payment of those expenses pursuant to the no-fault act; they had standing to pursue claims for these expenses under MCL 500.3112; and defendant failed to issue payment in contradiction of the subject insurance contract and the Michigan no-fault act. MCL 500.3101 et seq. Defendant answered the complaint and filed various affirmative defenses, including that Campbell was not a named insured or resident relative under the subject policy of insurance and that she failed to prove that she was entitled to claim benefits under the no-fau