Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #300035 and 300066; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Fitzgerald, and Borrello; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
The Michigan Supreme Court DENIED Leave to Appeal on March 4, 2013; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition granted in favor of Progressive Insurance and the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (MACF) pursuant to MCL 500.3113(b), which states that an injured person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits where that person was the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle involved in the accident where the security required by § 3101 of the Michigan No-Fault Act was not in effect.
In this case, Progressive issued a no-fault insurance policy to Nicholas Owsiany insuring a vehicle owned by his fiancé, Danielle Pillars. However, the policy properly named Pillars as an excluded driver as permitted by MCL 500.3009(2). The exclusion contained the appropriate warning language and specifically excluded Pillars from coverage for personal protection insurance benefits.
Pillars was injured in a motor vehicle accident while she was driving the insured vehicle which she owned. Progressive denied no-fault benefits pursuant to the language of MCL 500.3113(b) and the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Progressive. A second action filed against the (MACF) and consolidated with the action against Progressive also resulted in a summary disposition granted in favor of the MACF for the same reasons.
In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition, the Court stated that MCL 500.3101 requires that the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance. The Court held that Progressive properly denied PIP coverage on the ground that the security required by such § 3101 was not in effect at the time of the accident because Pillars was an excluded driver who also owned the vehicle involved in the accident.
In upholding the trial court, the Court rejected Bronson’s argument that the case of Iqbal v Bristol West Ins Group, 278 Mich App 31 (2008) supported Bronson’s argument that the insurance obtained by Owsiany on the vehicle provided the security required by § 3101 and, therefore, the exclusion for PIP benefits in MCL 500.3113(b) does not apply. The Court pointed out that in the Iqbal decision, that case did not involve a situation where a named excluded driver was operating the accident vehicle. Rather, the question presented in Iqbal was whether a person who could also be considered an “owner” of the vehicle must also insure the vehicle. The Iqbal court held that the language of MCL 500.3113(b) “links the required security or insurance solely to the vehicle.” There was no dispute that in Iqbal there was insurance in effect at the time of the accident unlike the instant case where the exclusion voided the insurance. The Court held that it must enforce as written both the plain and unambiguous language of the statute.
The Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that because the named driver exclusion rendered Pillars ineligible for PIP benefits under Progressive’s policy, the Court should order the MACF to assign plaintiff’s claim to another no-fault carrier. The Court stated that plaintiff had not provided any authority supporting this position.
Accordingly, the grants of summary disposition in favor of Progressive and the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility were affirmed.
