Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 157967; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Wahls, and Kuhn; 2-1 (with Judge Neff dissenting); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 per curiam unpublished Opinion (Judge Neff dissenting), the Court of Appeals denied no-fault benefits pursuant to §3113(b) because plaintiff was the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was operating her uninsured automobile. The court rejected plaintiffs argument that under her husband's insurance policy, he had the right to exercise an option to insure the vehicle within 30 days after plaintiff became a resident of his household following plaintiffs acquisition of the vehicle.
On November 20,1989, plaintiff purchased the vehicle later involved in the accident Plaintiff did not insure the vehicle, and at the time of acquisition of the vehicle, she was separated from her husband. On December 20,1989, plaintiff was in the process of moving back into her husband's home after a reconciliation, when she was involved in the accident At the time of the accident, plaintiffs husband was insured by a no-fault policy issued by AAA. Plaintiff was listed as an insured on the policy. Under the policy, the principal named insured had an option to purchase insurance for an additional car, provided the option was exercised within 30 days of the "acquisition of the additional car." Sometime after the accident, plaintiffs husband requested that the car involved in the accident be added to the policy pursuant to the option provision. An endorsement was issued adding the car to the policy on January 11,1990. Plaintiff's request for no-fault benefits was denied on the grounds that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs argument that her husband could exercise the option to add her vehicle within 30 days after the date of "acquisition" which the court should interpret as the date she became a resident of her husband's household. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not a principal named insured under the policy at the time she purchased the vehicle. The policy clearly defines "spouse" as the named insured's wife if a resident of his household. Because plaintiff was not a resident of her husband's household, she was not his spouse under the terms of the policy.
The court also held that plaintiffs husband could not elect to purchase insurance for the vehicle retroactive to the date of plaintiffs purchase of the vehicle under the option provision. The court declined to follow plaintiffs interpretation of the policy language that "acquired" meant when plaintiff was moving back into her husband's home. The court held that the potential for abuse under such an interpretation would be significant.
Judge Neff in her dissent would hold that under the policy, plaintiffs husband "acquired" the car for purposes of the additional car option provision when his wife moved back into the marital residence. The operative date with regard to coverage is not the date plaintiff purchased the vehicle, but the date that she moved back in with her husband. Therefore, plaintiffs husband retained the right to exercise the option within 30 days after his wife moved back in, and therefore, there should be coverage for this accident.
