Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #317753; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Wilder, and Owens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses for Medical Treatment [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses for Medical Transportation Mileage [§3107(1)(a)]
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving which insurer had priority to pay no-fault benefits to a plaintiff involved in two separate accidents — the first while a passenger in her mother’s vehicle and the second while a passenger in a medical transportation van — the Court of Appeals ruled that, pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1) and (4), the insurer of the medical transportation van was responsible for benefits because plaintiff’s injuries “arose out of” the accident that occurred while she was an occupant of the van, and not while she was an occupant of her mother’s vehicle.
Plaintiff was injured in two different accidents. At the time, she was residing with her mother, who had a no-fault policy with defendant, Auto Club Insurance. In the first accident, plaintiff was a passenger in her mother’s vehicle. In the second accident, plaintiff was riding in a medical transportation van belonging to Renali Transport, LLC. Auto Club paid plaintiff benefits after the first accident, but refused to pay benefits after the second accident, claiming the insurer of the van had higher priority. Plaintiff filed this action seeking benefits from Auto Club, including wage loss, medical expenses, prescription expenses, attendant-care benefits, replacement services, and mileage. Auto Club moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff’s injuries arose from the second accident and, therefore, the van’s insurer was responsible for coverage. The trial court granted summary disposition for Auto Club.
Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals first rejected plaintiff’s argument that Auto Club’s priority defense was invalid. Citing §3114, the court said:
“If the injured person does not have an available insurance policy [of her own], then he or she must claim benefits from the owner or registrant of the occupied vehicle or the operator. However, ‘except as provided’ in subsection (1) and (4) makes it clear that subsection (2) maintains priority even over one’s own insurer when the person is injured in a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers, such as the medical transportation van involved in the second accident in this case. Thus, to the extent plaintiff claims benefits for injuries arising out of the second accident, she was required to file a claim against the insurer of the transportation van, not defendant.”
Regarding plaintiff’s argument that there was a question which accident caused her injuries, the Court of Appeals said the evidence showed that plaintiff’s injuries from the first accident had “subsided” before the second accident involving the van. The court stated:
“It was not until June 2011, after defendant terminated her benefits related to the first accident, that plaintiff sought an orthopedic exam. Dr. Stefan Glowacki, the orthopedic surgeon, did not disable plaintiff until July 6, 2011, due to numerous injuries that, according to the emergency room report and Dr. Gross, were not present following the first accident. Further, the only medical bills in the record are attached to defendant’s motion for summary disposition and are for services rendered after the second accident. Based on this record, it is clear that plaintiff’s claim for benefits was based on injuries all arising from the second accident.”
Plaintiff further alleged there was a question of fact about whether Auto Club paid all the benefits for the first accident. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and said plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing that the benefits Auto Club paid were unreasonable, nor did she submit any evidence showing that the allowable expenses or wage loss she incurred were more than what Auto Club had paid. The court concluded:
“Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition in this regard, because there was no evidence that [Auto Club’s] payments following the first accident were unreasonable.”
