Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 349299; Published
Judges Riordan, Shapiro, and Ronayne Krause; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan’s motion for summary disposition, in which it argued that co-defendant Home-Owners Insurance Company was the insurer of highest priority pursuant to MCL 500.3114. The plaintiff’s assignor was injured in a motor vehicle collision while driving an uninsured vehicle owned by her father, who did have a policy of automobile insurance through Home-Owners, albeit one that did not cover the vehicle in question. In ruling that Home-Owners was the insurer of highest priority, the Court of Appeals noted that MCL 500.3114(4)(a) designates the insurer of the “owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied” as the insurer of highest priority in scenarios such as the one in this case, and that it therefore did not matter that Home-Owners did not insure that specific vehicle.
Maureen Calcatera was injured in a motor vehicle collision while driving a vehicle owned by her father. Calcatera did not live with her father at the time of the collision, and the vehicle was not insured at the time of the collision. Calcatera received treatment for her injuries from the plaintiff, Michigan Head & Spine Institute, who sought no-fault PIP benefits for the treatment it rendered from the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. The Michigan Assigned Claims Plan later discovered that Calcatera’s father did have automobile insurance through Home-Owners, although his policy with Home-Owners did not cover the vehicle Calcatera was driving at the time of the collision. In the ensuing first-party action and priority dispute, the MACP moved for summary disposition against Home-Owners, arguing that Home-Owners was the insurer of highest priority. The trial court disagreed, and denied the MACP’s motion.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the MACP’s motion for summary disposition, noting that the statutory scheme governing priority clearly establishes Home-Owners as the insurer of highest priority. MCL 500.3114(4)(a) designates “the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied” as the insurer of highest priority in scenarios such as the one in this case. It does not matter, therefore, that the specific vehicle Calcatera was driving at the time of the collision was insured by Home-Owners, so long as it was owned by Home-Owners’ insured.
In sum, the above caselaw establishes that “[t]he insurer of the owner of registrant of the vehicle occupied” as used in MCL 500.3114(4)(a) refers to the insurer of the vehicle’s owner, not the vehicle itself. Thus, priority under MCL 500.3114(4) establishes liability to pay PIP benefits. In this case, at the time of the accident, Cuddihy was the titled owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, and he was insured by a Home-Owners policy covering a different vehicle. Accordingly, Home-Owners has priority under MCL 500.3114(4) as the insurer of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, even though it did not insure the vehicle. Because there is an applicable insurer, the trial court erred by denying MACP summary disposition.
