Parie Wallace v. Smart

Summary

The Court held that both plaintiffs had standing to pursue personal-protection-insurance benefits, but assignments transferred real-party-in-interest status away from them when their suits were filed. The Court further held that real-party-in-interest defects may be cured through appropriate litigation procedures, that rescission requires equitable judicial consideration before affecting third parties, and that the one-year-back rule concerns recovery rather than real-party-in-interest status. The cases were remanded for proceedings addressing whether the defects could be cured and, in Wallace’s case, whether equitable rescission was warranted.