Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 229407; Published
Judges Wilder, Bandstra and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 252 Mich. App. 330, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam published opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a pedestrian not otherwise covered under his own insurance policy could seek PIP benefits from the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle that struck the pedestrian, even though the owner/registrant of the vehicle had not specifically insured that vehicle and the vehicle was not listed on the insurance company’s declaration page.
Plaintiff Jeffrey, a pedestrian, was injured in an accident involving an automobile. The automobile was owned by John Miller, Sr. However, prior to the accident, John Miller, Sr. had given the vehicle to his son, John Miller, Jr. No transfer of title had been made, and consequently, Miller, Sr. remained the title owner. Miller, Sr. did not renew the insurance coverage on the van because he had given it to his son, and although the son had purchased insurance on the vehicle, it had been cancelled prior to the accident.
Plaintiff Jeffrey sought benefits from Pioneer, the insurance company for Miller, Sr. with regard to other vehicles in his household. Pioneer denied benefits, and the claim was thereafter assigned to Titan Insurance Company through the Assigned Claims Facility. Titan contested its liability, and in a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of coverage as between Pioneer and Titan, Pioneer contended that because the van was not a “covered auto” under the policy it had issued to Miller, Sr. with regard to other vehicles, there was no insurance coverage for Jeffrey’s claim. Titan contended that priority for coverage existed with Pioneer based upon section 3115(1)(a) of the No-Fault Act which provides that a person suffering accidental bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle claims personal protection insurance benefits from “insurers of owners or registrants of motor vehicles involved in the accident.” Pioneer contended that since Miller, Sr. remained the owner and registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, Pioneer as his insurer remained liable for the PIP benefits claim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that section 3115(1)(a) required coverage for PIP benefits to be provided by Miller, Sr., the owner/registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, even though Miller, Sr. did not specifically insure that vehicle through Pioneer. The Court of Appeals held that the provisions of 3115(1)(a) do not state that the injured person must seek these benefits from the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, nor does the statute mandate that the vehicle involved in the accident be insured by the insurer of the owner before an injured person can seek benefits. The court held that its ruling was consistent with the legislative intent that persons rather than vehicles be insured against loss.
