Michigan Hit-and-Run: UM Coverage & the Police Report Trap (2026)
A Michigan driver who is hit by an unidentified vehicle has two clocks running at once: the no-fault Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (“MACP”) priority track and the uninsured-motorist (“UM”) track on the victim’s own policy. The single most common reason these claims fail is a missing or late police report. This guide explains how to keep both tracks alive.
Two Coverage Paths Run in Parallel
When the at-fault driver flees the scene, the injured Michigan claimant generally has two coverage doors to knock on:
- First-party PIP through the MACP. Under MCL 500.3172, a person entitled to PIP who cannot identify any insurer obligated to pay can apply to the Assigned Claims Plan within one year of the accident under MCL 500.3174. PIP via the MACP is capped at $250,000 of allowable expenses for accidents on or after 2019 PA 21’s effective date.
- UM (uninsured motorist) under the claimant’s own policy. UM coverage pays the bodily-injury claim that would have been brought against the fleeing driver. Michigan does not mandate UM, but the great majority of policies include it. Coverage limits run from the statutory minimum bodily-injury figure (currently $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident under 2019 PA 21) up to whatever the policyholder bought.
The Police Report Trap
Almost every Michigan UM policy contains a notice provision requiring the insured to report a hit-and-run to law enforcement within 24 hours and to the carrier “promptly” or within a specified window. Rory v. Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005), confirmed that Michigan courts enforce unambiguous policy terms even when the resulting deadlines feel harsh. Late or missing police reporting is among the most common reasons UM hit-and-run claims are denied in Michigan.
The same crash report is also what the MACP applications office uses to evaluate the PIP claim. A claimant who waits two weeks to call the Michigan State Police hands the carrier an argument that the vehicle was identifiable and the claimant simply did not pursue it.
| Step | Deadline | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Call 911 from the scene if able | Immediately | Creates a contemporaneous record of the unidentified vehicle |
| File a UD-10 with police | Within 24 hours per most UM policies | Triggers UM notice-of-loss compliance under Rory |
| Notify own carrier (UM) | “Promptly” — usually 30 days outer limit | Late notice can jeopardize or, under unambiguous policy language, defeat UM coverage |
| File the MACP application | One year from accident under MCL 500.3174 | PIP through the Assigned Claims Plan is barred after one year |
| Preserve scene evidence | Within days | Paint transfers, vehicle parts, debris support the unidentified-vehicle claim |
| Send preservation letters for nearby cameras | Immediately, within days | Many cameras overwrite footage quickly; preservation letters should go out as soon as possible |
UM Contractual Limitations Periods
Most Michigan UM policies contain a contractually shortened limitations period — typically three years for bringing suit against the carrier. Rory upheld these. A hit-and-run UM claimant who lets the three-year clock run because the at-fault driver was never identified loses the right to sue the carrier. The Michigan Assigned Claims Plan’s one-year application window under MCL 500.3174 is even tighter. Filing through the MACP does not toll the one-year limitations period under MCL 500.3145 as to an insurer later discovered to be of higher priority.
When the Fleeing Driver Is Eventually Identified
If law enforcement later identifies the hit-and-run driver, the case structure can shift:
- The third-party bodily-injury claim under MCL 500.3135 revives against the identified driver if the claimant clears the serious-impairment threshold under McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010).
- The three-year statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805(2) controls the third-party claim — not the UM contractual limitations period.
- Underinsured-motorist (“UIM”) coverage may kick in if the identified driver’s policy limits are insufficient.
- Subrogation rights flow from the UM carrier to the eventually-identified defendant.
The Innocent-Third-Party Wrinkle
A claimant who applies to the MACP must show they are entitled to PIP under MCL 500.3172. The Plan can deny on grounds including failure to identify, fraud, and material misrepresentation. The 2026 Michigan Supreme Court decision Sherman v. Progressive, Docket No. 167826 (April 2026), reinforced the carrier’s right to rescind policies for material misrepresentation, but the innocent-third-party rule continues to insulate certain non-named claimants from rescission under Meemic v. Fortson, 506 Mich 287 (2020). The MACP is a distinct creature, but the same general principles influence its denial analysis.
How Comparative Fault and the 50% Bar Cut Into UM
A UM jury is allowed to allocate comparative fault under MCL 600.6304 just as a third-party jury would. A claimant whose fault exceeds 50% is barred from non-economic damages even when the at-fault driver is the fleeing one. The plaintiff therefore needs to be careful about contributory factors (excessive speed at the moment of impact, late braking, distraction of the claimant’s own).
Stacking and Setoff — Do Multiple Policies Combine?
Michigan generally does not permit inter-policy stacking of UM limits absent express policy language. Cole v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 272 Mich App 50; 723 NW2d 922 (2006), and related cases enforce anti-stacking provisions. Intra-policy stacking on multiple-vehicle policies depends on the contract. UIM setoff also follows the policy language, often allowing the carrier to reduce its exposure dollar-for-dollar by what the identified at-fault driver’s carrier already paid.
Frequently Asked Questions
I didn’t call the police because nobody was seriously hurt at the scene. Am I out of luck?
Not necessarily, but the case becomes harder. Most UM policies require police notification within 24 hours. Many Michigan trial courts will excuse delays of a few days where the claimant did notify the carrier promptly and the failure to call police did not prejudice the investigation. The earlier the police report, the stronger the claim.
What if the police report blames me even though I was hit-and-run?
The police report is admissible only in limited circumstances; the at-fault determination on the UD-10 is not binding on the civil court. Plaintiff counsel can rebut with eyewitness testimony, accident-reconstruction, dash cam, surveillance, and vehicle data. The civil jury makes its own fault allocation under MCL 600.6304.
My car was hit while parked. Does UM cover that?
UM is primarily a bodily-injury coverage. Property damage to a parked vehicle by an unidentified driver is generally handled through collision coverage on the claimant’s own policy or through the mini-tort framework if the driver is later identified. If a passenger was injured while sitting in the parked car, UM bodily-injury can apply.
Can the MACP and my UM carrier both pay?
Yes, but coordination rules limit double recovery. MACP pays first-party PIP (allowable expenses up to $250,000, wage loss, replacement services). UM pays the third-party bodily-injury demand (pain and suffering, threshold damages under MCL 500.3135). Setoff and subrogation follow the specific policy language.
What if I was hit by a phantom vehicle — no contact, but it caused me to swerve?
Phantom-vehicle UM claims require corroborating evidence beyond the claimant’s own testimony. A nearby driver, a passenger, a dash cam, or a surveillance camera all qualify. Without independent corroboration, phantom-vehicle UM claims are frequently denied in Michigan.
Can I sue if the fleeing driver is eventually caught?
Yes, subject to the three-year statute under MCL 600.5805(2) and the serious-impairment threshold under MCL 500.3135. If you already collected UM proceeds, your UM carrier has subrogation rights against the identified driver. Coordinate with both your UM carrier and your attorney before signing any release.
Hit by an unidentified Michigan driver?
Free, confidential review with Attorney Manny Chahal. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425