Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #310085; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Cavanagh, and Stephens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Commercial Vehicles [§3114(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that a “courtesy van” operated by an airport hotel was a “motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers” within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(2) and, therefore, the insurer of the van was responsible for paying plaintiff’s PIP no-fault benefits when she was injured as she was exiting the van at the airport.
After plaintiff spent the night at an airport hotel due to a delayed flight, she then boarded a courtesy van provided by the Comfort Inn which transported her to the airport. Upon exiting the van she lost her balance, fell to the ground, and sustained injuries requiring surgery and rehabilitation. Home-Owners issued the insurance policy to Future Lodging-Airport, Inc. which provided coverage for the courtesy van. Plaintiff had no-fault insurance through her personal Allstate Insurance policy.
The two insurance companies disputed which was in first priority for payment of plaintiff’s benefits. Home-Owners argued that it was not required to cover the injuries under MCL 500.3114(2), because the vehicle at issue was not owned or operated by a business that was “primarily” in the business of transporting passengers. Section 3114(2) provides that a person suffering accidental bodily injury while a passenger of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers, shall receive the personal protection insurance benefits to which the person is entitled from the insurer of the motor vehicle. Case law interpreting that statutory provision, namely, Farmers Insurance Exchange v AAA of Michigan, 256 Mich App 691 (2003), has determined a legislative intent that a “primary purpose/incidental nature test” is to be applied to determine whether at the time of an accident a motor vehicle was operated in the business of transporting passengers pursuant to subsection 3114(2).
In this case, the court held that it was beyond reasonable argument that the operation of the courtesy van involved a “commercial” situation, and that Future Lodging-Airport, Inc. was in the business of operating a hotel near the airport and, as such, the shuttle service is a significant hotel amenity. The court held that the business of providing lodging and a shuttle service go hand-in-hand in drawing patrons to the hotel. The court found that the shuttle service was a significant part of the Comfort Inn’s business and, therefore, Home-Owners was responsible for plaintiff’s PIP benefits.
