Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 174191; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Holbrook, Jr., and Corrigan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion dealt with a priority dispute between a truck driver's personal automobile insurer (the defendant) and the insurer of the truck in which the truck driver was injured. In holding that the insurer of the truck had primary liability for payment of PIP benefits, the court focused upon specific language in the "trucker's policy" under the "trucker's conditions" section. This language stated that "this coverage form" is primary for any covered vehicle while hired or borrowed by you. The Court of Appeals construed this language as an unambiguous contractual commitment by the plaintiff trucking insurance company to be the primary insurer for no-fault PIP benefits. Accordingly, the court stated that it "need not look to section §3114 or §3115 of the no-fault act to determine priority among insurers in this case."