Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #315727; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Jansen, and O’Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a priority dispute between insurers which concerned the ownership of a minivan under MCL 500.3101(2)(h), the Court of Appeals found the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the ownership issue was improper because the trial court failed to analyze whether constructive ownership was established under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals, without providing further explanation, implied that the outcome turned on whether plaintiff was an owner of the minivan pursuant to §3101(2)(h).
The person for whom benefits were sought in this case, Steve Gedda, suffered injuries while driving an uninsured minivan that was titled in his mother’s name. Following the accident, he sought to recover no-fault benefits through the Assigned Claims Facility, which assigned the claim to Titan Insurance. At the time of the accident, Gedda’s mother owned another vehicle insured by State Farm and, on this basis, Titan argued that State Farm was the insurer of higher priority. Plaintiff, Michigan Head and Spine, filed this action seeking benefits and moved for partial summary disposition, claiming Steve was not an “owner” of the uninsured minivan and asking the trial court to find that State Farm had to pay benefits.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted the question at the trial level was whether there was a genuine issue regarding who owned the minivan. The court explained the focus of an ownership analysis is “the nature of the person’s right to use the vehicle,” including whether the person had the right to use it for more than 30 days.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court’s written order said:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and Intervening Plaintiffs’ The Regents of the University of Michigan’s Motion for Partial Summary Disposition Regarding No-Fault Coverage as to Stephen Gedda’s entitlement to no-fault benefits is hereby GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record.”
On the record, the trial court had stated:
“On the date of the accident, July 11, 2011, Steven Ghetta [sic] sustained bodily injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. He had borrowed his mother’s car — it was titled in his mother’s name — just for that day. There is no evidence that his use was continuous to give rise to a situation of constructive ownership. Therefore, the Court rules that State Farm is first in priority.”
The Court of Appeals said the trial court’s reference to “continuous use” in its order was “insufficient” to determine whether the court appropriately considered the No-Fault Act and case precedent that controls the ownership analysis. The Court of Appeals concluded:
“[T]he circuit court did not reference the evidence on which it based its determination that Steve had ‘borrowed’ the car ‘just for that day.’ In addition, although the parties presented evidentiary challenges in their summary disposition materials, the circuit court did not indicate whether it had assessed the admissibility of any of the evidence in the record. MCR 2.116(G)(6) mandates that the circuit court consider only admissible evidence when ruling on a summary disposition motion. … Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
