Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 74393 and 75955; Published
Judges Gillis, Kelly, and Sanborn; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 142 Mich App 237; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Commercial Vehicles [§3114(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion deals with a priority dispute involving §3114(1) and (2) of the act. Plaintiffs were college students and sustained injuries while passengers in a vehicle driven by another college student. The three students were going home for a holiday vacation. None of the three were acquainted with one another, the two passengers having responded to a notice posted by driver Tomczyk on the "student ride board." Each plaintiff paid Tomczyk $25 for a round-trip ride from school-to-home-to-school. The legal issue in the case was whether plaintiffs should claim their no-fault benefits under their own no-fault policies (which contained coordinated benefits provisions) or should claim under Tomczyk's policy with MEEMIC pursuant to § 3114(2), which states that persons injured while passengers in motor vehicles "operated in the business of transporting passengers" shall claim their benefits from the vehicle occupied. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that §3114(2) did not apply to this fact situation. The court stated, "We are not persuaded that the Legislature intended by it enactment of §3114(2) of the no-fault act to abandon the general rule of coverage where college students pay other college students for the privilege of car pooling home for school holidays. We agree with the trial court that under the particular facts of this case, plaintiffs were not passengers of 'a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passenger.’"
