Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 111539; Unpublished
Judges Cynar, Brennan, and Marilyn Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§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 held that the employer vehicle priority provisions of §3114(3) of the No-Fault Act did not apply where the plaintiff was injured while driving a motor vehicle owned by his co-partner. The court held that in order for benefits to be payable under §3114(3), the plaintiff must be occupying a vehicle furnished by his employer. Therefore, an employer-employee relationship must exist.
In this case, plaintiff was driving a vehicle owned by his brother who was his co-partner in a restaurant partnership. This is not an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of §3114(3). The court agreed with plaintiff that an employee need not be acting in the course of his employment in order to recover benefits under §3114(3). However, there must be an employer-employee relationship. According, plaintiffs private no-fault insurer was in the first order of priority.
