Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #317565; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Borrello, and Gleicher; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Motor Vehicle (General) [§3101(2)(e)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
Non-Occupant Priority [§3115]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving injuries sustained in a non-operational vehicle, the Court of Appeals held that the persons injured were “occupants” of the vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(4), despite the fact that the vehicle was non-operational; therefore, State Farm, as an assigned insurer, was the priority insurer obligated to pay plaintiffs benefits under the priority provisions of §3114.
Plaintiffs were sitting in a stationary Ford Taurus owned by plaintiff Abrams. The Taurus was non-operational and uninsured. A vehicle driven by Linwood Bynes and insured by Home-Owners struck the Taurus. None of the plaintiffs had insurance or lived with an insured. The uninsured plaintiffs sought benefits, and State Farm was assigned the claim. State Farm denied benefits. Plaintiffs then brought separate actions seeking coverage against State Farm and Home-Owners, and the trial court consolidated the cases. State Farm claimed it was not obligated to pay benefits because plaintiffs were not “occupying” the non-operational Taurus “as a motor vehicle” within the meaning of §3114(4). State Farm asserted that plaintiffs were not “occupants” and, instead, were akin to pedestrians under MCL 500.3115(1), which meant that Home-Owners had priority to pay. However, Home-Owners maintained that the “operated or designed for operation upon a public highway” provision in MCL 500.3101(2)(e) did not include a transportational function component, and therefore State Farm had priority under §3114(4) because plaintiffs were injured while “occupants” of the vehicle. State Farm moved for summary disposition, which the trial court granted, finding that Home-Owners had priority.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that State Farm was obligated to pay benefits instead of Home-Owners, because plaintiffs were “occupants” of the Taurus within the meaning of §3114(4). The court reasoned:
“The Taurus was clearly a ‘motor vehicle’ as that term is defined in MCL 500.3101(2)(e). There is no ‘transportational function’ component in the plain language of the statute and to the extent the circuit court read that component into the text of the statute, it erred in doing so. Additionally, plaintiffs were seated in the Taurus at the time of the accident. Thus, they were ‘occupants’ of the Taurus. … They clearly were occupying the Taurus, a motor vehicle, at the time of the accident and there is no dispute that they suffered injuries while occupying the Taurus. … MCL 500.3114(4) plainly applies to persons who suffer accidental bodily injuries ‘arising from a motor vehicle accident’ ‘while an occupant of a motor vehicle.’ As explained …, plaintiffs were occupants of the Taurus, a motor vehicle, at the time they sustained their injuries.”
The Court of Appeals further found that plaintiffs’ injuries arose out of the use and operation of the motor vehicle (Taurus) as a motor vehicle. In this regard, the court said:
“Here, there is no dispute that Bynes’ used and operated his motor vehicle as a motor vehicle or that such use and operation gave rise to the loss and injuries in this case. Thus, the ‘use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle’ requirement was satisfied for purposes of MCL 500.3114(4) in that plaintiffs’ injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident. In sum, plaintiffs suffered accidental bodily injuries while they were occupants of a motor vehicle and their injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident.”
Based on its conclusion that plaintiffs were occupants of the Taurus, the Court of Appeals held that State Farm had priority to pay benefits. The court said:
“PIP benefits are governed by MCL 500.3114(4) and State Farm, as the appointed claims carrier, has priority over Home-Owners. The circuit court erred in concluding otherwise and in granting summary disposition in favor of State Farm.”
