Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.307936; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Sawyer, and Fort Hood; 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)]
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Definition of Registrant [§3101(2)(i)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether Deborah Lashbrooks’ personal automobile insurer, State Farm, could be obligated to provide her with PIP benefits arising from a motor vehicle collision in which she was involved while operating a Peterbilt tractor that was titled in her name, but being operated pursuant to a lease arrangement with Northfield Trucking, hauling a Northfield trailer at the time of the accident. The Peterbilt tractor was not insured under the State Farm policy.
Lashbrook insured the tractor with a company that provided a “bobtail policy” which is a type of insurance policy that provides PIP coverage only when the tractor is not hauling a trailer. Therefore, the bobtail policy was determined not to provide PIP coverage in this case. Northfield Trucking also did not provide PIP benefits under the circumstances of this case where plaintiff was operating the truck pursuant to a lease arrangement with Northfield. When plaintiff sought coverage under her personal automobile insurance which insured her 1993 Ford Ranger, State Farm denied coverage, arguing that the Peterbilt tractor did not qualify as “your car,” or “a newly acquired car” within the terms of the policy. State Farm also contended that Lashbrook was not entitled to PIP benefits because the Peterbilt tractor was not insured as required by the provisions of MCL 500.3101 and, therefore, coverage was barred by the provisions of MCL 500.3113(b), which precludes coverage for PIP benefits when the injured person was “the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle . . . involved in the accident with respect to which the security required by section 3101 . . . was not in effect.”
In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant State Farm, the Court of Appeals held that the terms of the State Farm policy were governed by the no-fault statute and must be read together with that statute. The court, citing Lee v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 412 Mich 505 (1982) held that it is the policy of the No-Fault Act that “persons, not motor vehicles, are insured against loss.” Citing Lee, supra, the court stated that “the personal insurer of an injured claimant may stand liable for benefits despite the fact that it has written no coverage respecting any vehicle involved in the accident . . . .”
Addressing State Farm’s argument that because the Peterbilt tractor was owned by Lashbrook and not properly insured as required by §3101, the Court of Appeals held that although Lashbrook acknowledged she purchased the tractor, at the time of the accident she had leased the tractor to Northfield Trucking. Under MCL 500.3101(h)(i), an “owner” is defined as “[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 court noting that Lashbrook had entered into a lease with Northfield Trucking and pursuant to that lease, had driven the truck for six months on behalf of Northfield, it is unclear if plaintiff can be construed as the “owner” for purposes of MCL 500.3101(h)(i) because of the lease agreement with Northfield Trucking.
Because the court could not determine whether plaintiff can be considered the owner for purposes of MCL 500.3113(b), the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendant State Farm. The matter was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
