Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 194221; Unpublished
Judges Taylor, Hood, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to construe an insurance policy as extending no-fault PIP benefits to plaintiff where the policy was issued to plaintiffs sister, and plaintiffs sister failed to disclose that plaintiff was the actual owner of the vehicle rather than the sister. Moreover, plaintiff was aware that the insurance documents had been issued with no reference to plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle, or as an insured under the policy. The court found that although plaintiff was not excluded under the provisions of §3114, there was no coverage under the language of this policy. The court also ruled that plaintiff could not be considered a third parry beneficiary because the defendant was completely unaware of the involvement of plaintiff in the transaction or that she was the party who was the owner and registrant of the vehicle in question. The court also refused to reform the insurance contract because there was no evidence to support the conclusion that defendant ever intended to insure the plaintiff. In actuality, the court found the plaintiff to be "a complete stranger" to the insurance contract. Finally, the court found that defendant was not equitably estopped from denying coverage, because the defendant only dealt with plaintiff’s sister and never was aware of plaintiff s involvement.
