Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #328979; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Hoekstra and Beckering; Unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to Benefits for Out-of-State Accidents [§3111]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals held that no genuine issue of material fact existed that the claimant was entitled to no-fault PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111 for his Florida accident involving a golf cart, because he was undisputedly a “named insured” under a Michigan auto no‑fault policy.
Defendant Daniel Ramp, a Michigan resident, was injured in Florida when he was struck by an automobile while driving a golf cart after playing a round of golf. He filed a claim for no-fault PIP benefits pursuant to §3111 through a Michigan auto no-fault policy issued by plaintiff Home-Owners for vehicles that Ramp owned in Michigan. Home-Owners denied the claim, arguing Ramp was not entitled to benefits because the Florida golf cart was not insured with Michigan PIP insurance. Home-Owners filed this action, seeking a declaration that Ramp was not entitled to PIP or underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. The policy included an exclusion providing that Ramp was not entitled to UIM benefits if he was injured while occupying a vehicle that was “designed primarily for use on public roads.” Ramp, however, maintained he was entitled to coverage, as well as medical payments under a motorized golf cart coverage endorsement. Ramp filed two motions for summary disposition arguing that 1) he was entitled to PIP benefits because he was a named insured under a Michigan no-fault PIP policy and 2) the no-fault policy provided UIM benefits and the policy’s exclusion was inapplicable. Ramp contended that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the golf cart was designed primarily for use on public roads. Home-Owners also filed a motion for summary disposition, asserting that Ramp was not entitled to either PIP benefits or UIM benefits as a matter of law. The trial court denied Ramp’s summary disposition motions and granted partial summary disposition to Home-Owners. The trial court reasoned, in part, that Ramp could not establish coverage under §3111 because the facts showed the accident occurred outside Michigan and the golf cart did not have PIP coverage.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Ramp was entitled to no-fault PIP benefits as a matter of law under §3111.
In so holding, the Court recognized that, under the clear and unambiguous language of §3111, a person named as an insured under a Michigan no-fault policy is entitled to PIP benefits for an out-of-state accident, regardless of whether the vehicle is insured. The Court observed:
“The unambiguous language of MCL 500.3111 provides that ‘[p]ersonal protection insurance benefits are payable for accidental bodily injury suffered in an accident occurring out of this state … and the person whose injury is the basis of the claim was the time of the accident a named insured under a personal protection insurance policy … or an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy.’ The word ‘or’ is a disjunctive term indicating a choice between alternatives. ... Accordingly, the plain language of the statute reveals a legislative intent to entitle a person to personal protection insurance benefits when he is at the time of the accident a named insured under a personal protection insurance policy or an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy.”
The Court of Appeals went on to find that no genuine issue of material fact existed about whether Ramp was entitled to PIP benefits under §3111 because, at the time of the accident, he was a named insured under a Michigan no-fault PIP policy. In so finding, the Court concluded:
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that the accident occurred in Florida —outside the state of Michigan — and Daniel, whose injury is the basis of the claim, was at the time of the accident a named insured under a personal protection insurance policy. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Daniel was entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under MCL 500.3111.”
