Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 101369; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, MacKenzie, and Schnelz; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed a priority dispute where the injured party was claimed to be occupying his employer's vehicle at the time of injury. Under the facts, plaintiff has been a 50% shareholder of a corporation insured by American Casualty. However, prior to the accident, plaintiff had sold the corporation, but continued to provide services as a "consultant." He was not on salary for his services, nor was there any evidence that the company had any control over him. Under these facts, the Court concluded that it could not reverse the trial court's determination that plaintiff was not an "employee" of his former company.
Even so, the Court of Appeals did reverse the trial court's ruling that plaintiff’s benefits were payable under a policy on an uninyolved vehicle owned by plaintiff’s wife. It appears from the language of the opinion that the Court did not feel the wife's no-fault policy should pay under the primary priority provisions of §3114(1) because plaintiff was named on the employer's policy as a "listed driver." Under §3114(1), insureds of "persons named in the policy" are also in the first line of priority. Also coming into play here is the secondary priority provision of §3114(4) which obligates insurers of vehicles occupied to pay benefits if §3114(1) priority does not apply. The Court felt §3114(4) should control here and accordingly held.
[Author's Comment: It seems this case could have been resolved by concluding that the wife's insurer and the employer's insurer were in an equal line of priority under §3114(1), thereby requiring pro rata apportionment between carriers under §3115(2). See, Michigan Mutual v Allstate (Item No. 958).