Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #301214; Published
Judges Jansen, Wilder, K.F. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion
On September 24, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED application for leave to appeal; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Motorcycle Injuries [§3114(5)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Registration and Title Requirements)
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that where the owner and registrant of a motorcycle allowed his license plate to remain on the motorcycle and failed to cancel his registration, he therefore remained the registrant for purposes of MCL 3114(5)(d) and his insurance company was responsible for payment of PIP benefits even though there had been an effort to transfer the owner’s interest in the motorcycle prior to the accident.
This case represents the second appeal in this matter, the first case having been decided on January 8, 2009 (RB #3032). The case involves a dispute between Titan Insurance and State Farm Insurance concerning which is responsible for payment of PIP benefits to Kenneth Curler, who was injured on June 17, 2006 in a motorcycle accident.
The question of PIP responsibility in this case turned on interpretation of § 3114(5), which provides:
“(5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:
(d) The motor vehicle insurer of the owner or registrant of the motorcycle involved in the accident.”
In this case, the motorcycle involved in the accident was owned by Edward Shreve prior to the accident. Shreve contended that on June 14, 2006, he sold the motorcycle to a person named Jay, for cash, and that he signed and surrendered the title and the motorcycle to Jay at that time.
In the first appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court determination that because Shreve signed the certificate of title and delivered the motorcycle to Jay before the accident, Shreve’s insurer, State Farm, had no liability. On appeal in the first action, the Court of Appeals determined that there was a question of fact concerning the attempted transfer of title in the vehicle at least with regard to the date on which that occurred because of the fact that the title itself contained the date of June 18, 2006, the day after the accident occurred.
On remand, additional testimony was taken and facts established that Shreve remained the “registrant” at the time of the accident because he left his license plate on the vehicle when he sold it to Jay. Further, registration of Shreve’s plate was never cancelled prior to the accident. As such Shreve remained the registrant under MCL 257.342.
In this second appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the issue on appeal was whether, by leaving the plates on the motorcycle when he sold it to “Jay”, Shreve remained the registrant of the motorcycle. Titan argued that the use of the disjunctive “or” in the phrase “owner or registrant of the motorcycle” in MCL 500.3114(5)(d) requires a finding that Shreve’s insurer, State Farm, was liable for payment of PIP benefits because Shreve remained the registrant of the vehicle even if not the owner. State Farm, in response, contended that by cancelling his insurance and relinquishing possession of the motorcycle and title, Shreve had no remaining interest in the vehicle after the sale.
In ruling that Shreve’s insurer, State Farm, was obligated to pay the personal protection benefits in this case, the Court of Appeals relied on Clevenger v Allstate Ins Co, 443 Mich 646 (1993) in support of its conclusion that Shreve’s failure to remove his unexpired license plate from the motorcycle and in failing to cancel his registration, Shreve therefore remained the registrant for purposes of § 3114(5)(d).
