Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #310085; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Cavanagh, and Stephens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Commercial Vehicles [§3114(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion regarding which insurer had priority to pay no-fault benefits, the Court of Appeals ruled that the no-fault insurer of a hotel’s courtesy van was obligated to pay benefits to a passenger who was injured while exiting the van because the van was an “integral” part of the hotel’s operations and, therefore, the hotel was “in the business of transporting passengers” within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(2).
Plaintiff was injured when she fell while getting out of a hotel’s courtesy van at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Plaintiff filed a claim for PIP benefits with defendant, Home-Owners Insurance Company, which insured the courtesy van. Home-Owners paid benefits at first, but then claimed plaintiff’s own no-fault insurer, Allstate, had priority because the hotel was not primarily “in the business of transporting passengers” under §3114(2). Home-Owners alleged the van was “merely incidental” to the primary business of operating a hotel. The trial court granted summary disposition for Allstate.
Affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals cited §3114(2):
“A person suffering accidental bodily injury while an operator or a passenger of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers shall receive the personal protection insurance benefits to which the person is entitled from the insurer of the motor vehicle.”
The No-Fault Act does not define “of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers,” the Court of Appeals said, citing Farmers Ins Exchange v AAA of Michigan, 256 Mich App 691 (2003). According to the appeals court, the exception in §3114(2) reflects the Legislature’s intent to place the burden of paying benefits on the insurers of vehicles used in commercial situations, rather than insurers of individuals.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeals applied the “primary purpose/incidental nature test” set forth in Farmers Ins Exchange to determine whether, at the time of the accident, the hotel was “in the business of transporting passengers” within the meaning of §3114(2). The court said:
“Under the first prong of the test, the record supports a conclusion that the primary purpose, if not the exclusive purpose, of the courtesy van was to transport passengers to and from the airport. … With regard to the second prong, the evidence of record demonstrated that [the hotel’s owners] are in the business of operating a hotel near the airport and, as such, the shuttle service is a significant hotel amenity. Specifically, the hotel’s website advertises a ‘Stay and Fly Package,’ which includes the shuttle service, as a ‘very convenient alternative to airport parking,’ and lists a free ‘airport shuttle’ as a hotel amenity.”
The Court of Appeals further noted the hotel was a “commercial for-profit business” that used the van as part of its guest services. The court said:
“The business of providing lodging and a shuttle service go hand in hand in drawing patrons to the hotel. We additionally point out that the courtesy van in which plaintiff traveled was clearly intended for use as a shuttle transportation vehicle. Thus, considering the airport’s close proximity and the hotel’s advertisement of this service for their guests, we find that the shuttle service is a significant part of the [hotel’s] business and that the second prong is met. Further, we note that Home-Owners did not supply any documentary evidence to the contrary.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled that Home-Owners, which insured the courtesy van, was the priority insurer, and affirmed summary disposition for Allstate.
