Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 331934; Unpublished
Judges Gadola, Jansen and Saad; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents [§3111]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendants Richard and Janet Jankowski was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) because they were owners of a motor vehicle for which they failed to maintain the necessary no-fault coverage as required under MCL 500.3101(1).
Defendants, Richard and Janet Jankowski, are residents of Michigan who live in Florida during the winter months. Defendants were injured in an auto accident in Florida while driving a vehicle they had leased, which they registered in Florida and insured through a Florida policy. Defendants sought no-fault PIP benefits from Home Owners, which insured their Michigan vehicles, and from Auto Owners, which had issued them a liability policy. The trial court held that Richard Jankowski could not collect PIP benefits because he was an “owner” of the vehicle and the vehicle was not covered under a Michigan no-fault policy. The trial court, however, ruled that Janet Jankowski was not precluded from PIP benefits because she was not an “owner” or an “owner by use” of the vehicle. On appeal, Home Owners asserted that Janet Jankowski was an “owner by use” of the vehicle and was precluded from PIP benefits because, as an owner, she had to carry Michigan no-fault insurance on the vehicle but failed to do so.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Home Owners, finding that Janet Jankowski was not entitled to PIP benefits because she was an “owner by use” and did not secure Michigan no-fault insurance on the vehicle that was involved in the accident. Under MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i) a person is an owner if he or she has the use of a vehicle for more than 30 days. Here, Janet did not need permission to use the vehicle and she had her own set of keys for more than a 30-day period. This, according to the Court, established that Janet was an “owner by use” because she had use of the vehicle for more than 30 days. Thus, Janet was an owner and required to provide no-fault insurance to collect no-fault benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3101. Because she did not provide the requisite coverage, she was barred from recovery under MCL 500.3113(b).
Here, the undisputed testimony of defendants was that Mrs. Jankowski was allowed to drive the GX460 for the entire time period between January and May. Mrs. Jankowski stated that she had her own set of keys and that she did not need to ask permission to use the vehicle. Mr. Jankowski also acknowledged that Mrs. Jankowski did not need to ask permission to use the GX460. These facts establish that Mrs. Jankowski’s rights to the GX460 were consistent with that of an owner and that she had this right for a period of longer than 30 days. Therefore, we hold that Mrs. Jankowski was an “owner” of the vehicle under MCL 500.3113(b), and the trial court erred when it ruled otherwise. As such, Mrs. Jankowski is barred from recovering any PIP benefits because the GX460 lacked the necessary security.
The Court of Appeals further rejected defendants’ argument that MCL 500.3113(b) should not disqualify them from benefits, because the vehicle was never operated in Michigan it did not have to be registered in Michigan and, therefore, the security set forth in MCL 500.3101(1) was not required. The Court explained that Wilson v League Gen Ins Co, 195 Mich App 705 had expressly rejected this argument based on the reasoning that under the MCL 257.601 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, the vehicle the Jankowskis and were operated was required to be registered in Michigan.
Defendants’ reliance on MCL 257.216 and the preamble to the Motor Vehicle Code is misplaced. [T]he plain language of the no-fault act precludes a vehicle’s owner from collecting PIP benefits if the vehicle was not covered under a Michigan no-fault policy. … Accordingly, if a party ‘was the owner or registrant of the vehicle involved in [an] accident, and the security required’ by MCL 500.3101 ‘was not in effect with respect to that vehicle, then [he or she] is precluded from recovery’ of PIP benefits. … Construing MCL 500.3113(b) and MCL 500.3101(1), the Court in Iqbal v Bristol West Ins Group, 278 Mich App 31, … stated, "The statutory language links the required security or insurance solely to the vehicle."
