Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 114700; Unpublished
Judges Gillis, Sullivan, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP BenefitsoOn Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with a very unique set of facts regarding a Michigan resident's right to collect no-fault benefits for an accident occurring in Wisconsin while the Michigan resident was operating vehicle owned by a Wisconsin resident, registered in Wisconsin and insured under a Wisconsin insurance policy. The plaintiff lived in Michigan with her parents who were insured under a policy issued by a Wisconsin company. The Court of Appeals held as follows:
1. The Michigan plaintiff was not entitled to collect no-fault benefits under the policy insuring the Wisconsin vehicle she was operating at the time of the accident because that policy contained an out-of-state provision that would extend out-of-state no-fault type benefits only where the accident occurs in a state other than Wisconsin.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to collect no-fault benefits under her parents' Wisconsin policy because this policy contained an out-of-state insurance provision that applied only when the accident occurred in a state other than Wisconsin. Because plaintiffs accident in Wisconsin, there were no benefits payable under this policy.
3. Section 3163 of the Michigan Act did not entitle plaintiff to recover no-fault benefits under the insurance policy covering the Wisconsin vehicle for the reason that §3163 only creates no-fault liability when a non-resident driver is involved in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan. Here, plaintiff (a Michigan resident) was involved in an accident in Wisconsin.
The court did remand the case to the trial court to develop facts with regard to plaintiffs argument that her parents insurance company was estopped from denying no-fault benefits because plaintiffs mother informed the insurance company of the family's recent move to Michigan and the insurer continued to provide coverage to the family without conforming the coverage to the requirements of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to develop facts with regard to these issues of waiver and estoppel.
