Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 28242; Published
Judges Gillis, D. E. Holbrook, and A. C. Miller; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 76 Mich App 497; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
The Court of Appeals held in companion cases that where a motorcyclist is injured in an accident involving an automobile, the motorcyclist is to recover no-fault first-party benefits from the PIP carrier of the automobile involved in the accident regardless if the motorcyclist has an automobile no-fault policy extending coverage. The logic of the decision would also apply to bicyclists and pedestrians similarly situated. The court held that §3114 of the No-Fault Law does not control the issues presented in this case as that section deals with "occupants." Consequently, the priority provisions discussed in §3135 dealing with non-occupants controls this issue.
The Court of Appeals also relied heavily on the concept that a motorcyclist need not purchase no-fault insurance under the statutory scheme. Accordingly, if the motorcyclist does not have to purchase the insurance in the first place, it is not logical to make the motorcyclist turn to a private automobile policy that he has purchased to pay his PIP benefits regarding injuries he sustained in connection with his motorcycle. These decisions were premised on the concept that there must be some nexus between the receipt of no-fault first-party benefits and the motor vehicle involved in the particular accident. Where the plaintiff is the driver or occupant of a motor vehicle involved in the accident, the nexus is clearly established and said plaintiff should be compelled to turn to his own insurance company (if one is available) to recover PIP benefits. However, where the plaintiff is not the driver or occupant of a motor vehicle with no-fault coverage which is not involved in the accident, then there is no nexus between the recovery of no-fault benefits and the uninvolved automobile. Accordingly, the plaintiff should turn to the automobile which is involved in his accident to recover his PIP benefits. The court apparently felt that to rule otherwise would compel insurance companies to underwrite risks which are too far removed from the activities of their insured. This decision concurs with the holding in Underbill v Safeco; Michigan Court of Appeals, Docket No. 25868; May 21,1976.
