Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 77355; Published
Opinion by_______; Per Curiam; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 428 Mich 43; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [§3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of §3114(1) to mean that separate insurers of the operator of a motor vehicle involved in the accident are in the same order of priority with regard to payment of no-fault benefits and are of a higher order of priority than the insurers of the owner of the vehicle involved. Therefore, one of the insurers of the operator of the vehicle who paid no-fault benefits was entitled to recoupment from the other insurer of the operator under the provisions of §3115(2). In so holding, the Supreme Court specifically disapproved of a contrary holding by the Court of Appeals in the case of State Farm v Citizens Insurance Company (Item No. 344) and those subsequent Court of Appeals decisions which followed State Farm (Allstate v Transamerica, Item No. 788 and Johnson v Michigan Educational Employees Mutual, Item No. 775).
The specific facts in this case involve the death of a husband who resided with his wife in a household that had six vehicles. The husband was killed in an automobile accident driving a car owned by his wife with respect to which she was the named insured. The husband was listed as a named insured on two separate policies issued by DAIIE and Home Insurance Company covering vehicles other than the one that was involved in the accident. The Court reasoned that under the terms of §3114(1), the husband was "covered" by the insurance policy that DAIIE issued to the wife covering the vehicle involved in the accident, and thus he could collect under that policy or under his own policies. However, the second sentence of §3114(1) goes on to state that if benefits are payable under a policy issued to a spouse or a policy issued to the injured person, the benefits are to be paid by the insurer of the insured person. Since AAA and Home Insurance Company each had issued a policy that had named the husband as an insured operator, those two insurers were in equal priority and thus recoupment under §3115(2) was proper.
