Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.104687; Unpublished
Judges Beasley, Gillis, and Brennan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Exception for Employer Provided Vehicles [§3114(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals relied upon the previous decision in Allstate v Citizens (Item No. 550) and held that a corporate no-fault policy issued to the employer of a man whose daughter was injured in a car accident not involving the corporate insured vehicle was not obligated to pay PIP benefits on behalf of the daughter, even though the father owned the vehicle that was insured under the corporate policy. The court held that a no-fault policy issued to the daughter's mother was the policy that should provide the benefits under §3114(1). Under §3114(3), the employer's insurer is only obligated to pay where the employee, the employee's spouse, or a relative sustains injury "while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer." In this case, had the daughter or any other person been injured while an occupant of the corporate insured vehicle, benefits would be payable under that policy.
The fact that the father owned the vehicle but insured the vehicle under a policy issued to the non-owner corporation, did not create any basis to distinguish this case from the decision in Allstate v Citizens. The court rejected plaintiffs argument that public policy reasons existed to distinguish the Allstate case because there was no vehicular accident scenario involving the father's vehicle that could be envisioned in which the corporate insurer would have to provide benefits. The court stated that were a party injured while an occupant of the father's vehicle, then benefits would be paid under the corporate policy.
