Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 200392; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Holbrook, Jr., and MacKenzie; Unanimous; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld denial of PIP benefits to the plaintiff under section 3113(b) by reason of the fact that plaintiff was found to be operating an uninsured motor vehicle which she owned at the time of the collision. The court denied plaintiff’s argument that Farm Bureau should be precluded by the doctrines of waiver, equitable estoppel and laches from asserting that plaintiff was the owner of the uninsured vehicle on the grounds of wavier, equitable estoppel and laches, based upon the fact that Farm Bureau had asserted, in a separate action with another automobile insurance company, that Brown was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle.
After plaintiff was injured in her accident, her claim was assigned to Farm Bureau for processing pursuant to section 3172, the Assigned Claims Plan. Farm Bureau filed a separate declaratory judgment action against League General Insurance company, the insurer of plaintiff s estranged husband, claiming that plaintiff was entitled to benefits under her husband's policy. In that action, Farm Bureau argued that plaintiff was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle because, although she had purchased the car days before the accident, she had not yet received the car's title or had it registered in her name. In that separate declaratory judgment action, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was the car's owner, effectively absolving League General from any obligation to pay PIP benefits to her.
In the pending action between plaintiff and Farm Bureau, plaintiff asserted that Farm Bureau's position taken in the declaratory judgment action that plaintiff was not the owner of the vehicle, should constitute a waiver or equitable estoppel precluding Farm Bureau from asserting in the present action that plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and held that subject to two (2) broad classes of exceptions, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are generally not available to force an insurer to cover a loss never assumed under the terms of its contract or policy with the insured.
The court found that neither of the two exceptions applied. The first exception involves insurers who reject coverage claims and fail to defend the insured in an underlying action. Here, this exception did not apply, because plaintiff was no longer a party in the declaratory judgment action against League General. The second exception involves cases where the inequity suffered by the insured as a result of misrepresentations regarding a policy by the insurer outweighs the inequity of forcing the insurer to pay an uncovered risk. That exception was also found not to be applicable, since Farm Bureau neither had a contract or policy with plaintiff nor made any representations. The court further found that the doctrine of laches was inapplicable to this action.
