Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262345; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, White, and O’Connell; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Occupants [3114(4)]
Equal Priority Situations [3114(6)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, the Court of Appeals held that the priority provisions of §3114(4)(a) of the no-fault statute allowed for a finding that more than one insurance company might fit the definition of “the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied,” and, therefore, in this case, both insurers, if of equal priority, could be required under the provisions of §3115(2) to share the liability for paying PIP benefits.
Steven Onore was killed in an automobile accident while a passenger in a car driven by Chad Furtick and owned by Larry Furtick. Larry Furtick owned four motor vehicles, three of which, including the Camaro involved in the accident, were insured with Frankenmuth. Larry Furtick also owned another automobile totally unrelated to the accident and insured with Titan. Onore was not the named insured on any no-fault policy, nor did he have a spouse or resident relative with any such insurance. Under the provisions of §3114(4), Onore’s survivors were entitled to claim benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:
(a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied.
(b) The insurer of the operator of the vehicle occupied.
Frankenmuth acknowledged it had specifically listed the Camaro on its insurance declaration sheet, but claimed also that Titan was “technically” an insurer of the owner of the vehicle (Larry Furtick) who insured the unrelated car through Titan. Frankenmuth argued that because Titan was also an insurer of the owner (Larry Furtick), under the language of §3114(4)(a), Titan was an insurer of equal priority so it was obligated to share the liability for paying PIP benefits pursuant to §3115(2).
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Titan, the Court of Appeals noted that the Supreme Court in Detroit Automobile Insurance Exchange v Home Insurance Company, 428 Mich 43 (1987) had held that two insurers that each insured a different car owned by one man should share liability for paying PIP benefits to the man’s widow, even though neither insurance company covered the car he was driving at the time of his fatal accident. The Supreme Court determined that the Legislature’s use of the singular noun “insurer” in §3114(1) did not reflect its intent to hold only one insurer responsible for paying benefits in a given case. The court stated, “The interpretation of the statute accords with the Legislature’s adoption of §3115(2), which states that two or more insurance companies of equal priority must split the burden of paying PIP benefits.” Even though all of the priority provisions in §3114 use the singular form of the noun “insurer” when discussing priority, the provisions of §3114(6) and §3115(2) each indicate an awareness that multiple insurers might sometimes wind up in the highest priority category.
The Legislature anticipated more than one insurer might fit the description in §3114(4)(a) which belies Titan’s argument the Legislature never intended to include more than one insurer in the priority category of §3114(4)(a).
The matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant Titan indeed fit into the same category of priority with plaintiff.
