Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 195577; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Jansen, and Markey; 2-1 (with Markey Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 per curiam unpublished Opinion, Judge Markey concurring in part and dissenting in part, the Court of Appeals held that the owner and registrant of an uninsured truck involved in a motor vehicle accident, could not be considered to be a “permissive user” of his own titled vehicle for purposes of receiving personal injury protection benefits through a policy of insurance purchased by his girlfriend who had added the same vehicle to her own no-fault automobile insurance policy.
In this case, John House purchased a pickup truck on July 13,1994. He was the sole titled owner of the truck. However, he never purchased no-fault insurance for the truck. Evidence demonstrated that he had three (3) prior drunk driving convictions and was driving in violation of a restricted license when the accident occurred.
At the time that he purchased the truck, House was living with his girlfriend, Yvonne Demlow. On the date of purchase by her boyfriend of the pickup truck, she called her insurance agent through which she had her own automobile insured, and requested that the agent add the pickup truck to her then existing no-fault insurance policy. The truck was added to Michigan Millers' policy sold to Yvonne Demlow, with the only named insured on the policy as "Yvonne Demlow."
After the August, 1994 accident, Michigan Millers discovered that the pickup was titled in the name of House, and rescinded coverage, alleging that Demlow had no "insurable interest” in the truck, and that Demlow had fraudulently procured the policy by concealing House's status as the pickup truck's owner and primary operator.
The Court of Appeals addressed the trial court's ruling that Demlow had no insurable interest in the pickup truck, and the trial court's ruling that she was not the statutory owner of the truck. The court held that Demlow did have an insurable interest in the pickup truck, because she purchased no-fault insurance for it, specifically for PIP benefits for herself had she been injured while driving the truck. The court held that a person obviously has an insurable interest in her own health and well-being, and this is the insurable interest which entitles persons to PIP benefits, regardless of whether a covered vehicle is involved in the accident. The court also held that Demlow was "an owner" of the pickup truck, as that term is defined in section 3101 (2)(g)(i) of the act, providing that "an owner" is a "person renting a motor vehicle or having the use thereof, under a lease or otherwise for a period that is greater than 30 days."
The evidence in this case demonstrated that Demlow indeed used the pickup truck for a period of greater than 30 days. Further, the evidence showed that she drove the pickup truck 20 to 25 times from the date of its purchase until the date of the accident on August 17,1994. Thus, under a plain reading of the statute, the court held that Demlow could be considered to be an owner of the pickup truck.
Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that even though Demlow was considered to be a statutory owner of the truck, her boyfriend, House, could not be considered to be a permissive user of the truck to which he was the sole titled owner, such that he could be eligible for PIP benefits. The provisions of section 3009 state that coverage must extend to all “permissive drivers” unless the person is expressly excluded on the face of the policy. However, in this case, because House was the sole titled owner of the pickup truck and had primary use of it, he could not be construed as a permissive user of his own car so that he may obtain coverage under someone else's policy.
In her concurrence and dissent, Judge Markey agreed with the trial court's factual and legal determinations that because of House's status as sole record title holder and registrant of the truck, and under the terms of Demlow's policy, Demlow could not insure House's vehicle under her existing no-fault policy. Judge Markey further disagreed with the majority opinion that Demlow had an insurable interest in the vehicle owned by her boyfriend.
"An insurable interest in property is broadly defined as being present when the person has an interest in property, as to the existence of which the person will gain benefits, or as to the destruction of which the person will suffer loss."
Madarv League General Insurance Company, 152 Mich App 734 (1986)
Judge Markey would hold that the fact scenario in this case did not rise to the level of creating for Demlow an insurable interest in her boyfriend's vehicle. Judge Markey further disagreed with the majority that Demlow's insurable interest consisted of her need for PIP benefits for herself had she been injured while driving the pickup truck. Judge Markey noted that under the No-Fault Insurance Act, and by the terms of Demlow's own policy, she was protected under the policy on her own automobile.
Finally, Judge Markey disagreed with the majority ruling that Demlow's usage of her boyfriend's truck rose to the level of a statutory ownership under 3101(2)(g)(i). Judge Markey noted that Demlow's usage of the truck was "spotty and exceptional" rather than proprietary or possessory. Additionally, Judge Markey pointed out that when Demlow first contacted her insurance agent to insure the truck on the same date that it was purchased, Demlow was "no type of owner" since she had not yet had the use of the vehicle for any period of time.
