Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102696; Published
Judges Gillis, Murphy, and Gage; 2-1 (with Judge Murphy Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 171 Mich App 317; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to Be Registered [§3101(1)]
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Motor Vehicle Code (Registration and Title Requirements) (MCL 257.201, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 Opinion by Judge Gillis, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court denial of no-fault benefits to plaintiff where she was deemed to be the owner of a motor vehicle involved in the accident where the vehicle was not insured.
Plaintiff had entered into a "conditional sales transaction" wherein she purchased a catering business alone with the involved vehicle. Plaintiff was obligated to make monthly installment payments for three years, after which she would receive title to the business and the vehicle. In the interim period, the certificate of title remained in the name and possession of the original owner, but plaintiff had exclusive possession and use of the vehicle. Neither the original owner nor plaintiff obtained no-fault insurance upon the vehicle, although plaintiff did have a no-fault insurance policy issued by defendant and covering another vehicle. Plaintiff was insured when she was pinned between the vehicle and a building, during the interim period of her conditional sales transaction. Defendant denied benefits on the grounds that §3113(b) excluded personal protection insurance benefits for injuries occurring where the person insured was the "owner" of a motor vehicle "involved in the accident" where that vehicle was not insured.
Defendant claimed that the plaintiff was the owner of the van under MCLA 257.37, a part of the Motor Vehicle Code, which provided that owner means any person "renting a motor vehicle" or "having the exclusive use thereof," under a lease or otherwise, for a period of greater than 30 days. This same section of the Motor Vehicle Code also provides that a conditional vendee shall also be deemed the owner where the conditional vendee has a right of purchase upon performance of the conditions stated in the agreement and with an immediate right of possession vented in the conditional vendee.
The majority concluded that a person need not hold "legal title to a vehicle" to be an owner of it under MCLA 257.37(b). Although the No-Fault Act does not define "owner," the Court held that the No-Fault Act and the Motor Vehicle Code (which does define owner) should be construed in pari materia because they relate to the same class of things. The Court concluded that it could not believe that the Legislature would have intended that plaintiff, who had exclusive use of the van for two and one-half years, should recover PIP benefits because she properly insured another vehicle. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff was the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident and was not entitled to no-fault benefits.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Murphy argued that employing the definition of "owner" as contained in the Motor Vehicle Code would defeat the legislative purpose of providing PIP benefits when an insured is injured as a result of the ownership, operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle. Citing from the case of Michigan Mutual v Redding, 129 Mich App 631 (1983), Judge Murphy noted that the Court held that an installment sale was void where the buyer had not transferred the certificate of title to the installment buyer and the seller had not registered the sale with the Secretary of State. Efforts to use provisions in the No-Fault Act or no-fault insurance policies to exclude benefits to an injured -person who has obtained and paid for a no-fault policy, should be met with resistance. Under the No-Fault Act, persons, not motor vehicles, are insured against loss for PIP benefits.
