Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320150; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Saad, and Riordan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that coverage was not available to plaintiff under MCL 500.3114 and also under a no-fault policy issued to her parents on a vehicle for which title was later transferred to her, because plaintiff was not a named insured on the policy and was merely listed as a principal driver. The court further rejected various equitable arguments that were made by plaintiff.
Plaintiff in this case was the adult daughter of Richard and Kathleen Hoskins. While living with her parents, she jointly purchased a Ford Focus with them. Richard was the titled owner of the Focus and defendant Home-Owners issued a no-fault policy on the vehicle. Kathleen and Richard were listed as the named insureds and plaintiff was listed as the principal operator. When plaintiff moved out of her parents’ home, title to the Focus was transferred to her. The no-fault policy was later renewed, with Richard and Kathleen remaining the named insureds. Plaintiff did not obtain a no-fault policy of her own. After plaintiff was in an accident while driving the Focus, she sought PIP benefits through the Home-Owners policy. Home-Owners denied coverage, claiming it was not liable because neither Richard nor Kathleen had an insurable interest in the Focus at the time the policy was renewed, and because plaintiff was not a named insured. Plaintiff then brought this action, alleging Home-Owners unreasonably denied benefits. Home-Owners moved for summary disposition, which the trial court denied, finding there were genuine issues of material fact.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court improperly denied Home-Owners’ summary disposition motion, finding that plaintiff’s argument failed due to the plain language of the policy and of §3114. Regarding §3114(1), the court said:
“Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1). As this Court has held, the ‘person named in the policy’ under MCL 500.3114(1) is synonymous with the ‘named insured,’ and persons designated merely as drivers under a policy … are neither named insureds nor persons named in the policy. … Plaintiff is not listed on the policy as a named insured. She is named only as a principal operator. Nor is plaintiff a ‘relative … domiciled in the same household.’ It is undisputed that plaintiff was no longer residing with her parents at the time of the accident. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to PIP benefits from defendant insurer pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1).”
Regarding §3114(4), the exception for vehicle occupants, the Court of Appeals held that benefits were also unavailable to plaintiff. In this regard, the court said:
“Although plaintiff was an occupant of the vehicle, the statutory language does not provide for coverage under the circumstances of this case. … At the time of the accident, plaintiff was the owner, registrant, and operator of the vehicle. Yet, she did not have an insurance policy under which she was a named insured. That determination also ‘depends on the language of the relevant insurance policy.’ … The language in the policy indicates that individuals covered are the ‘named insured shown in the Declarations’ and ‘relatives’ of a named insured. A ‘relative’ is defined in the policy as ‘a person who resides with you and who is related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption.’ Because plaintiff did not reside with Richard and Kathleen, she is not a ‘relative’ as defined in the policy. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot recover PIP benefits from defendant insurer through the no-fault statute or by virtue of the policy. Thus, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
After reaching the foregoing conclusion, the Court of Appeals further rejected several of plaintiff’s other arguments, including: 1) the insurance policy should be reformed to substitute plaintiff as the named insured; 2) plaintiff was an “innocent third party” and the policy could not be rescinded; and 3) Home-Owners was equitably estopped from denying coverage.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding that plaintiff was not entitled to coverage.