Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 140617; Unpublished
Judges Wahls, Shepherd, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
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)
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and held that under §3113(b) the injured party was precluded from receiving no-fault benefits because he was an owner of the vehicle involved in the accident with respect to which the required insurance coverage was not in effect.
This case turned on whether or not a "conditional vendee" is considered an owner of a vehicle for purposes of receipt of no-fault benefits. The injured party was, at the time of the accident, driving a vehicle titled and registered in his brother's name. The injured party was purchasing the vehicle from his brother, and had paid $50 towards the purchase price of $150. His brother had given the injured party the unsigned title, with the understanding that he would sign it when the balance was paid. The injured person was given the keys, and treated the automobile as his own for approximately three to four weeks before the accident. The injured person did not have any insurance on himself or on the vehicle.
The Court of Appeals held that the facts of this case established that the injured party was a "conditional vendee" within the meaning of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCLA 257.37(b); MSA 9.1837(b), which defines an "owner" as either the person who held legal title, or, a "conditional vendee" in the case of a conditional sales agreement. The court noted that, although the Insurance Code, MCLA 500.3101, did not provide an independent definition of a motor vehicle "owner" until after the accident in this case, the court chose to follow the decision in State Farm Insurance v Sentry Insurance, 91 Mich App 109 (1979) which held that the definition of an owner in the Motor Vehicle Code should be read in pari materia with the no-fault act. The court also noted that the current provisions of the Insurance Code, MCLA 500.3101(g), include as the definition of an owner of a motor vehicle, a person who has the immediate right of possession of a motor vehicle under an installment sales contract.
The court held that it would do more violence to the plain words of the Motor Vehicle Code regarding the definition of an owner to ignore the provision concerning "conditional vendees" than to attempt to reconcile it with the title delivery requirements of the Motor Vehicle Code.
On the basis of the court's conclusion that a conditional vendee within the meaning of MCLA 257.37(b) is an owner for purposes of the no-fault act, the trial court's decision granting summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff was reversed.
