Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 147579; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Michael J. Kelly, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents [§3111]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the provisions of §3113(b) to preclude receipt of no-fault benefits claimed by a plaintiff who was temporarily living in Virginia and who sought benefits through her husband's policy issued in Michigan and insuring his vehicle. The court held that where the injured person was the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle involved in the accident with respect to which insurance required under the no-fault act was not in effect, §3113(b) prevents receipt of benefits.
Plaintiff claimed she was entitled to benefits under §3111 which provides for payment of benefits for accidental bodily injuries suffered in an accident occurring out of this state, where the injured person is the spouse of a named insured under a no-fault policy.
Plaintiff was severely injured in a single-car automobile accident in Virginia. At the time of the accident, she was temporarily living in Virginia, considering relocating her family to that state. Her husband remained in Michigan. Plaintiffs automobile involved in the accident was registered in Virginia and insured in Virginia. Her husband's automobile was insured by Auto Club in Michigan. Plaintiff contended that as the spouse of a person who insured an automobile in Michigan, she was entitled to no-fault benefits under §3111. Auto Club contended that plaintiff was precluded from receiving benefits pursuant to the provisions of §3113(b), which provides that a person is not entitled to no-fault benefits, if at the time of the accident, the injured person was the owner or registrant of a vehicle that did not have the insurance required pursuant to Michigan no-fault law. The court held that since plaintiff’s automobile involved in the accident was not insured under §3101, plaintiff could not receive benefits.
In upholding the trial court's decision in favor of Auto Club, the Court of Appeals held that its recent decision in Wilson v League General Insurance Company, 195 Mich App 705 (1992) was dispositive. In that case, the court stated that the language of §3113(b) "clearly and unambiguously states that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, where the vehicle had no security required by §3101 at the time of the accident, is not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits." In Wilson, the Court of Appeals held that the provisions of §3113(b) were not specifically limited to only cars driven on Michigan highways.
Therefore, the court affirmed summary disposition in favor of Auto Club.
