Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 200407; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Markman, and Whitbeck; Unanimous;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Definition of Owner) (MCL 257.37) (MCL 257.401a)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unpublished memorandum Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that where plaintiff had furnished funds for the purchase of a vehicle, and had principle use of a vehicle, he was precluded from receiving no-fault benefits by reason of §3113(b) of the act, which prohibits receipt of benefits under the no-fault act by an "owner" of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, if the required no-fault insurance has not been maintained on that vehicle. In this case, even though plaintiff was not a titleholder to the vehicle, by reason of his “principle use of the vehicle,” he was found to be an owner by reason of the definition of "owner" found in §3101(2)(g)(i) of the No-Fault Act, which defines an owner as a person renting a motor vehicle or “having the use thereof, under a lease or otherwise," for a period greater than 30 days.
In this case, the vehicle was in plaintiff’s family for more than 30 days and was available for continuing use by plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff had use of the vehicle for more than 30 days is the key fact which renders him, as a matter of law, an "owner" of the involved vehicle under the No-Fault Act, even though the ex-wife of plaintiff also had simultaneous ownership of the vehicle. There can be more than one owner for no-fault purposes.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was not an "owner" because ownership requires exclusive use. The Court of Appeals distinguished the definition of owner under the No-Fault Act from the definition of owner in the Motor Vehicle Code, MCLA 257.37(a): MSA 9.1837(a). The Motor Vehicle Code expressly includes the phrase "the exclusive use thereof." In contrast, the No-Fault Act has no such language, and previous decisions have held that the definition of "owner" in the No-Fault Act is properly construed without resort to the definition of owner in the Motor Vehicle Code.
Given plaintiff’s status as an owner of the involved motor vehicle, and his failure to have in force at the time of injury, a policy of no-fault insurance on the vehicle, plaintiff is statutorily barred from recovering no-fault personal protection insurance benefits.
