Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 348491, 348522; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Shapiro, and Ronayne Krause; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first party no-fault action and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff, Arthur Booker, was not entitled to no-fault PIP benefits because he failed to personally insure the vehicle he was driving at the time of the subject motor vehicle collision, and because his business—which purchased the policy— did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle. Relying on the Michigan Supreme Court’s previous decision in Dye v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 504 Mich. 167 (2019), the Court of Appeals ruled: (1) that Booker did not have to personally purchase insurance for the vehicle, and that Booker complied with his statutory duty under MCL 500.3101(1) by procuring insurance for the vehicle through his business; and 2) that Booker’s business did have an insurable interest in the vehicle, because the evidence showed that Booker used the vehicle for business purposes. Thus, “because there was no-fault insurance covering the vehicle owned by Booker, and because the purchaser of that coverage . . . had an insurable interest in the vehicle, Booker was entitled to PIP benefits for the injuries he sustained.”
Booker was injured in a motor vehicle collision while driving a 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier that he owned. When he first purchased the vehicle, his told his insurance agent that he had a handyman business and that he used the vehicle for his business. His insurance agent informed Booker that he was eligible for a commercial policy, and an insurance policy for the vehicle was subsequently issued to his business, Arthur Booker Handyman Services, Inc. After the subject collision and after his claim for no-fault PIP benefits was denied, Booker filed the underlying action against both Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the insurer of the Chevrolet Cavalier, and Home-Owners Insurance Company, the no-fault insurer of his sister, with whom he lived. Home-Owners moved for summary disposition, arguing that Hartford was the highest priority insurer, and Hartford moved for summary disposition, arguing that Booker “was precluded from receiving PIP benefits by MCL 500.3113(b) because he failed to ‘maintain security on the vehicle’ he owned as required by MCL 500.3101(1).” The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition in both Hartford’s and Home-Owners’ favor, ruling that Booker failed to personally insure the vehicle, and that, because Booker Handyman Services was not an owner or registrant of the vehicle, it did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition order, holding that Booker satisfied MCL 500.3101(1) by procuring insurance for the vehicle through his business. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dye v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 504 Mich. 167 (2019), in which the Supreme Court held that a vehicle owner need not “‘personally purchase no-fault insurance for his or her vehicle in order to avoid the statutory bar to PIP benefits,’ so long as someone maintains insurance for the vehicle.”
The Court of Appeals next held that Booker’s business did have an insurable interest in the vehicle, because the evidence showed that Booker used the vehicle for business activities, and thus the business had at least a pecuniary interest in the vehicle.
In this case, although Booker Handyman Services was not the titled owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, the business had a pecuniary interest in the vehicle. Booker testified at deposition that he used the vehicle for “[c]arrying the tools around or the cleaning products in the trunk of it” and used it for business purposes “[m]aybe four times a week.” His testimony was very clear: “I used the Cavalier on all the jobs.” He also testified that “[i]t was purchased for me and the business,” i.e., “[f]or business and personal use.” Given this testimony, it is apparent that Booker Handyman Services stood to gain by the continued existence of the vehicle and, conversely, would suffer some loss or disadvantage by its destruction. Moreover, Booker’s decision to maintain insurance through a corporate entity does not implicate the concerns associated with wager policies. Booker Handyman Services had no incentive to harm Booker or the vehicle, and it is Booker rather than the business who will receive payment of PIP benefits under the policy if Hartford is found to be the highest priority insurer.
The Court thus held that, “because there was no-fault insurance covering the vehicle owned by Booker, and because the purchaser of that coverage, Booker Handyman Services, had an insurable interest in the vehicle, Booker was entitled to PIP benefits for the injuries he sustained,” and remanded to the trial court for a determination of which insurer was higher in priority.
