Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 270948; Published
Judges Donofrio, Bandstra, and Zahra; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 274 Mich. App. 432, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [3114(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Bandstra, the Court of Appeals determined that even though the operator of an uninsured vehicle owned by a third-party was not a “named insured” under his wife’s no-fault insurance policy issued by Titan Insurance, Titan was liable for personal injury protection benefits under the priority scheme in MCL 500.3114(4)(b).
A passenger in an uninsured vehicle owned by the driver’s mother-in-law was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The passenger, who had no insurance, sought no-fault benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility. The Claims Facility assigned the claim to Amerisure and Amerisure filed this action against Titan Insurance. Titan argued it was not responsible for the injured person’s personal injury protection benefits because it did not insure the driver of the motor vehicle, it insured the driver’s wife. The trial court granted Amerisure summary disposition based on MCL 500.3114(4)(b), which provides that:
“. . . when there are no insurers with a higher priority, a person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident while an occupant of a motor vehicle shall claim PIP benefits from ‘[t]he insurer of the operator of the vehicle occupied.’”
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that under the terms of the Titan policy, the “named insured” was the person named in the policy and the person’s spouse, if the spouse lived in the same household. At the time of the accident, the driver lived in the same household as his wife and was, therefore, insured under the Titan policy. In this regard, the court stated:
“We conclude that, under the clear terms of the policy, Titan was Bernard’s insurer. Although Tonya (not Bernard) was the ‘named insured’ in the policy, the policy states that ‘[i]n return for your premium payment, we agree to insure you subject to all the terms of this policy’ and broadly defines ‘you’ and ‘your’ to mean ‘the “named insured” shown in the declarations and the spouse if a resident of the same household.’ Further, in its part relating to no-fault coverages, the policy defines ‘insured’ as including ‘you or any family member.’ Bernard qualified as a person insured by Titan under the policy pursuant to both of these definitional sections as he was the spouse of Tonya residing in her household and, therefore, one of her family members at the time of the accident. Thus we conclude that, for purposes of MCL 500.3114(4)(b), Titan was ‘the insurer of the operator of the vehicle occupied’ by Reginald at the time of the accident and therefore liable for the payment of PIP benefits.”
