Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #312747; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Donofrio, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising Out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
Sanctions Applicable Against Uninsured Debtors [§3117(2)(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a determination that defendant Thomas was obligated to pay Titan Insurance Company’s subrogation claim pursuant to §3177(1) of the Michigan No-Fault Act in the amount of $49,519.39, because defendant Thomas admitted that the injuries and death involved in this case arose from his ownership and use of his uninsured motor vehicle. The court rejected defendant’s argument that §3177(1) required proof of fault or a determination of his negligence.
In a case arising from a September 2010 motor vehicle accident in which defendant Thomas’ passenger died, defendant admitted that he owned the vehicle involved in the accident, that it was uninsured, and that he was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. The claim was assigned to Titan pursuant to procedures of the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility. Titan then made a claim for subrogation against defendant Thomas in the amount of $49,519.39, which included medical bills, loss adjustment costs, attorney fees, and interest.
Defendant Thomas argued that the trial court could not grant summary disposition for Titan without first determining Thomas’ liability for his passenger’s death. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that defendant had admitted that his passenger’s injuries and death arose from his ownership and use of his uninsured motor vehicle. There is no requirement in §3177(1) that there be proof of fault or a determination of negligence. Further, defendant’s argument that the passenger was comparatively negligent was also misplaced for the same reasons.
Accordingly, the Judgment in favor of Titan was upheld.
