Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 347007; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Kelly, and Servitto; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits, and remanded for entry of an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals determined that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dye v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 504, Mich. 167 (2019), the plaintiff, Justin Ayler, was not disentitled to no-fault PIP benefits merely because he was not the “named insured” on the policy under which his personal vehicle was insured. Ayler’s company—of which Ayler was the sole owner and resident agent—was the “named insured” on the policy, and in applying Dye, the Court of Appeals noted that Ayler “was not required to personally procure the insurance as long as the [vehicle] was insured.”
Ayler was living with his grandmother in Detroit at the time of the underlying motor vehicle collision. Approximately two years prior to the collision, he incorporated Mile Runners, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company. Ayler was the sole owner and resident agent of Mile Runners, and thereafter obtained an automobile insurance policy from Auto-Owners to cover two trucks used by the company to make deliveries. Eventually, Ayler added his personal vehicle, a Land Rover, to his existing policy with Auto-Owners, even though the named insured on the policy was “Mile Runners,” not Ayler, personally. Ayler was driving to work in his Land Rover when the underlying motor vehicle collision occurred, and subsequently filed a claim for no-fault PIP benefits from Auto-Owners as well as his grandmother’s automobile insurer, Liberty Mutual Mutual Insurance Company. Auto-Owners moved for summary disposition, arguing that Ayler was barred from recovering no-fault PIP benefits from any insurer because he failed to personally procure insurance for the Land Rover, and the trial court agreed, granting Auto-Owners’ motion.
On appeal, Ayler argued that the trial court erred in holding that he was not entitled to PIP benefits because he was driving his own vehicle without the required insurance, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dye, the Court noted that Ayler was not required to personally procure the insurance so long as the Land Rover was insured.
Plaintiff owned the Land Rover, and it was insured by Mile Runners. Under Dye, plaintiff was not required to personally procure the insurance as long as the Land Rover was insured. Mile Runners insured the Land Rover. Thus, the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits on the basis that the accident occurred while plaintiff was driving a vehicle he owned without the necessary insurance coverage. Despite the fact that plaintiff was not the “named insured” on the policy, he maintained the requisite no- fault insurance. Plaintiff is not barred from receiving no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).
Auto-Owners argued on appeal that, since Ayler was not the named insured in its policy, “the separate corporate structure created by plaintiff must be respected, and therefore, Auto-Owners is not responsible for providing PIP benefits.” The Court of Appeals disagreed, relying on the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lake States Ins. Co., 452 Mich. 84 (1996), and determining that Auto-Owners, as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the collision, was solely responsible for PIP benefits.
In Celina Mut Ins Co v Lake States Ins Co, 452 Mich 84; 549 NW2d 834 (1996), a priority dispute between two insurance companies, Robert Rood was driving a wrecker truck owned by Rood’s Wrecker & Mobile Home Service (Rood’s Wrecker). He was using his wrecker truck to tow another wrecker when it broke free. As a result of the broken hitch, the wrecker truck driven by Rood rolled over, and he suffered injuries. Rood was the owner of the wrecker, and the vehicle was insured by plaintiff Celina Mutual Insurance Company (Celina). However, Rood was the self- employed owner of Rood’s Wrecker, a sole proprietorship, and the vehicle was used within the scope of Rood’s responsibilities for his wrecking operation. Rood insured an additional vehicle with Celina. However, Rood insured three other motor vehicles with defendant Lake States Insurance Company (Lake States). Id. at 834-835.
Our Supreme Court declined to analogize the employment relationship to worker’s compensation law. Instead, it focused on the purpose of the no-fault act and that the goal of the act was promoted by including self-employed persons within the purview of MCL 500.3114(3). Thus, our Supreme Court concluded that the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, plaintiff Celina, was solely responsible for payment of no-fault benefits . . .
