Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 186999; Published
Judges Cavanagh, Murphy, and C. W. Simon, Jr.; 2-1 (with Judge Murphy Dissenting); Opinion by Judge Cavanagh
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 220 Mich App 386; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Commercial Vehicles [§3114(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published Opinion by Judge Cavanagh, the Court of Appeals upheld summary disposition in favor of USAA Insurance Company, finding that under §3114(2), Houston General Insurance had priority for providing no-fault benefits to a passenger injured in a bus accident.
The injured party was a flight attendant being transported by shuttle bus operated by Commuter Transportation Company, pursuant to a written agreement with Wayne County to provide ground transportation services at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. USAA insured the injured party, and Houston General insured the bus company, Commuter Transportation.
USAA claimed that the shuttle was in the business of transporting passengers under the priority provision of §3114(2) which provides that a person suffering accidental injury while a passenger of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers shall receive PIP benefits from the insurer of that vehicle. Houston General, as insurer of the bus, contended that the airport was a non-profit organization, and that under §3114(2)(c)(d), the provisions of §3114(2) which would require PIP benefits be paid from the insurer of the bus do not apply where the bus is operating under either a government sponsored transportation program or is operated by or providing service to a non-profit organization.
Houston General contended that Commuter Transportation did not have priority because it was both a governmental sponsored transport program and because it provided services to the Wayne County Metropolitan Airport Authority, a non-profit organization.
With regard to the contention that Commuter's operation of the shuttle bus service was a government sponsored transportation program, the Court of Appeals held that because the written agreement between Commuter and Wayne County specifically states that the contract did not render Commuter an agent or representative of the County for any purpose, and because Commuter was providing services as an independent contractor, it therefore did not constitute a government sponsored transportation program within the meaning of §3114(2)(c). Payment for a service by a government agency is not enough to render the service a government sponsored activity.
With regard to Commuter's contention that it was providing a service to a non-profit organization, the Court of Appeals held that because the statute did not define the term "non-profit organization," it was necessary to look to the legislative history of the act. Section 3114 was amended in 1976 for the purpose of easing the financial burden on the operators of vehicles used in government sponsored transportation programs or providing service to non-profit organizations. The court noted that the intent was to spare government sponsored programs and non¬profit organizations the cost of high insurance premiums. In the instant case, the cost of insurance was borne not by the airport or Wayne County, but by Commuter, which by contract was required to provide its own no-fault insurance. Further, Commuter is a for-profit corporation. The Court of Appeals held that the Legislature did not intend that government entities be considered "non-profit organizations" under the no-fault statute at issue.
Judge Murphy, in his dissent, argues that the provisions of §3114(2)(d) are clear and unambiguous, and that based upon the evidence that Metropolitan Airport is not operated for the purpose of producing a profit, it was therefore a non-profit organization and the injury occurred on a bus that provides service to that non-profit organization.
