Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #318744; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Hoekstra, and O’Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
On 9/23/2015, the Michigan Supreme Court directed the clerk to schedule mini-oral argument in the case to determine whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted; Link to Order
On 4/15/2016, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED the application for leave to appeal; Link to Order
On 5/27/2016, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED a motion for reconsideration; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not the owner of an uninsured vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(2)(h), even though she was the spouse of the registered owner, because she did not have permission to continuously use the vehicle for 30 days or more.
Plaintiff did not possess a driver’s license, yet was injured while operating a vehicle titled in the name of her husband. The vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident. Defendant Titan Indemnity Company claimed it was not obligated to pay benefits because plaintiff was an owner of an uninsured vehicle under §3101(2)(h). Plaintiff filed an action seeking benefits. Defendant moved for summary disposition, alleging plaintiff owned the uninsured vehicle because, under §3101(2)(h) she had use of it for 30 days or more. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, concluding there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was an owner of the vehicle. Finding that plaintiff’s use of the vehicle was “sporadic and intermittent” and subject to her husband’s permission and restrictions, and that plaintiff’s husband occasionally denied her permission to use the vehicle, the trial court ruled that plaintiff was not an owner within the meaning of §3101(2)(h). The trial court dismissed the case in plaintiff’s favor.
The Court of Appeals held that, under the circumstances, a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiff met the ownership requirements in the No-Fault Act. In this regard, the court reasoned:
“[Plaintiff’s] use of the vehicle did not comport with concepts of ownership. [Plaintiff] testified that [her husband] purchased the vehicle, titled the vehicle, and kept the vehicle’s only set of keys on his person. She testified that [her husband] periodically lent her the vehicle, but would occasionally deny her permission to use the vehicle. [The husband] testified that he lent [plaintiff] the vehicle at least once a week, but that he would not let her borrow it under certain circumstances. We conclude that under these facts, reasonable minds could differ regarding whether [plaintiff] used the vehicle in ways that comported with concepts of ownership.”
The Court of Appeals further rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court made erroneous findings regarding plaintiff’s use of the vehicle. The court said:
“We are not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake when it found that [plaintiff] periodically used the vehicle with [her husband’s] permission and that she would have to convince [her husband] to allow her to drive the vehicle. [Plaintiff’s] use of the vehicle did not comport with concepts of ownership. We conclude that the trial court’s findings in support of its conclusion that [plaintiff] was not an owner under MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) were not clearly erroneous.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for plaintiff was appropriate.
