Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 207139; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Smolenski, and Gage; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required To Be Registered [§3101(1)]
Ways to Provide Required Security [§3101(3) + 3101(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Civil Liability of Owner) (MCL 257.401)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant Yellow Freight Systems, as a self-insured entity under section 3101(4) of the No-Fault Act, had an obligation to provide insurance coverage and a defense to an employee of plaintiff Canton Fence & Supply Co. who was "permissively using" a vehicle owned by Yellow Freight Systems when the Canton Fence employee was unloading the vehicle.
During the course of the unloading, an employee of defendant Yellow Freight sustained injury. The Yellow Freight employee (Vujnovich) sued Canton Fence and recovered a settlement. Auto-Owners, the liability carrier of Canton Fence, requested that Yellow Freight, as the self-insurer of the vehicle, defend the action. Yellow Freight refused. Auto-Owners then settled the claim and sought declaratory relief on the theory that Yellow Freight, as a self-insurer, was obligated to provide a defense to the Canton Fence employee and to provide coverage for the loss.
The trial court agreed with Auto-Owners and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that under the self-insured provisions of section 3101(4), an entity that is self-insured has all the obligations of an insurer under the No-Fault Act. This means that Yellow Freight must provide "insurance coverage" with respect to damages arising out of the permissive use of its vehicles. The Canton Fence employee was permissively using the Yellow Freight vehicle when injury occurred. Therefore, Yellow Freight, as a self-insurer, was obligated to insure against this loss.
The fact that Vujnovich would not be entitled to PIP benefits under the parked vehicle exclusions of section 3106(2) did not affect the obligation of Yellow Freight to provide liability coverage as a self-insurer. In this regard, the court noted,
"The underlying suit here involved the claim for third party residual tort liability arising out of the use of defendant's truck Vujnovich's recovery in the underlying suit was not a recovery against defendant, but rather a recovery against Canton Fence. Defendant, as insurer of the truck, was ultimately responsible for providing insurance coverage and a defense for Canton Fence.... There is no merit to defendant's claim that self-insurers are not required by the No-Fault Act to provide coverage for 'permissive users' of their vehicles.... The owner of a registered vehicle in this state must maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance, property protection insurance and residual liability insurance.... The purpose of self-insurance is to compensate victims properly, and the owner of a vehicle is required to provide liability insurance that covers permitted users of the vehicle. Exclusions of coverage are only permitted for named persons and only if such an exclusion is authorized by the insured. Here it is undisputed that Canton Fence's employee had permission from Vujnovich to enter the truck and help unload the freight. As a permissive user of defendant's truck the Canton Fence employee was entitled to coverage under defendant's certificate of self-insurance. "
