Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264796; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Murphy, and Smolenski; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rules of Priority [3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the insurer of the vehicle that hit plaintiff was higher in priority than the insurer of the care facility in which the plaintiff lived, because plaintiff was neither a relative or a ward of the facility.
The plaintiff in this case was a resident of New Horizons, a residential care facility. New Horizons was insured under a no-fault policy issued by Auto-Owners. In 2004, while walking to the store, plaintiff was hit by a vehicle insured by Farmers Insurance. Plaintiff sued Auto-Owners and Farmers Insurance for personal injury protection benefits. The trial court granted Farmers’ motion for summary disposition, finding Auto-Owners liable for plaintiff’s PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(1), because plaintiff was a resident of Auto-Owners’ insured.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, finding that because plaintiff was not a relative or ward of Auto-Owners’ insured, Farmers, as the insurer of the vehicle that hit plaintiff, was liable for plaintiff’s PIP benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“When the relationship between Cote and New Horizons is considered in isolation, it is apparent that Cote was not a ward of New Horizons. Consequently, Cote was not a relative of new Horizons and, as a result, was not insured under the policy issued to New Horizons by Auto-Owners. Instead, because Cote did not have a no-fault policy of his own and was not covered under the no-fault policy of a spouse or relative, under MCL 500.3115(1) Cote was required to seek PIP benefits from the insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, which is Farmers.”
