Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #314621; Published
Judges Jansen, Saad, and Donofrio; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion involving an uninsured vehicle, the Court of Appeals held that MCL 500.3113(b) prevented plaintiff from recovering PIP benefits because: 1) neither plaintiff nor her mother, who co-owned the vehicle, maintained a no-fault policy on the vehicle, and 2) it was irrelevant that a third-party non-owner maintained a no-fault policy on the vehicle.
Plaintiff co-owned a Chevy Cavalier with her mother. Plaintiff regularly drove the Cavalier. Plaintiff’s mother was unable to use the vehicle because her legs had been amputated due to serious health problems. Even though the mother could no longer drive the vehicle, she made arrangements with a friend, Huling, for him to use the Cavalier to drive her to and from church. Under the arrangement, Huling purchased no-fault insurance on the vehicle from defendant State Farm, and listed himself as the named insured. Thereafter, plaintiff was driving the Cavalier and was in an accident. Plaintiff tried to recover no-fault benefits under the State Farm policy, but State Farm denied the claim on the basis that Huling was the named insured, he was not an owner of the vehicle, and neither plaintiff nor her mother had obtained no-fault insurance. After State Farm denied benefits, the claim was assigned to Farmers Insurance Exchange, which asserted that Huling was a “constructive owner” of the vehicle and State Farm was higher in priority. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims.
On appeal, plaintiff challenged State Farm’s denial of benefits, arguing that under Iqbal v. Bristol West, 278 Mich App 31 (2008), Huling’s no-fault policy satisfied the security provisions in the No-Fault Act. However, the Court of Appeals distinguished Iqbal from plaintiff’s case, explaining that Iqbal involved a situation where at least one vehicle owner had obtained no-fault coverage, whereas in this case, Huling was not an owner of the Cavalier and neither plaintiff nor her mother (the owners of the Cavalier) had purchased a no-fault policy.
The Court of Appeals said:
“Iqbal should not be read so broadly to apply to even nonowners. The Court made it clear that it was addressing the problem of whether the statute required ‘each and every owner’ to maintain insurance on a vehicle. … The Court opined that to so hold would preclude an owner who obtained insurance from receiving PIP benefits as long as any other co-owner did not maintain coverage as well.”
Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was disqualified from receiving no-fault PIP benefits under §3113(b). The court concluded:
“[W]hile Iqbal held that each and every owner need not obtain insurance, it did not allow for owners to avoid the consequences of MCL 500.3113(b) if no owner obtained the required insurance. Thus, under the plain language of MCL 500.3113(b), when none of the owners maintains the requisite coverage, no owner may recover PIP benefits. And because it is undisputed that the only coverage was supplied by Huling, who had been deemed to not be an owner, plaintiff is precluded under the no-fault act from recovering PIP benefits.”
