Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76453; Published
Judges Holbrook, Jr., T. M. Burns, and Caprathe; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 147 Mich App 390; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising Out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Caprathe involving an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeals ruled that §3177 of the no-fault statute does not require the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle which was not involved in the accident to reimburse a no-fault insurer for no-fault benefits paid by it as a result of the death of the owner's spouse, where the spouse was the equivalent of a pedestrian when injured. In this particular case, Mr. and Mrs. Elbode were dining in a restaurant when a vehicle driven by defendant's insured crashed through the wall killing Mrs. Elbode. Mr. Elbode owned a vehicle at the time that was uninsured. Allstate paid no-fault benefits and then sued Mr. Elbode under the reimbursement provisions of §3177.
In reversing the trial court's ruling that Allstate was entitled to reimbursement, the court relied upon the logic of the Supreme Court's decision in Heard v State Farm (Item No. 605) and held that reimbursement under §3177 is only required where the uninsured motor vehicle is either occupied or involved in the accident The court stated:
"We note that the statute does not expressly provide that the uninsured motor vehicle be involved in the accident. However, we believe that the Legislature intended that the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle be required to reimburse an insurer who pays benefits to the owner's spouse (or relative resident in the household) only when the owner's uninsured vehicle was involved in the accident."
