Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #321396; Unpublished
Judges Borrello, Hoekstra, and O’Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held a North Carolina insurer was not liable for PIP benefits to its insured, who was injured in a Michigan auto accident, because the North Carolina insurer was not notified that its insured had relocated to Michigan.
Plaintiff in this case issued a no-fault policy to Terry Dunn’s parents, who lived in Michigan. Terry and his wife, Laura, had relocated back to Michigan from North Carolina and were living with Terry’s parents. While living in North Carolina, Laura had obtained auto insurance through defendant Integon National. The Integon policy listed Laura as the named insured and Terry as an additional driver. Integon renewed the policy, apparently unaware that Laura and Terry had moved back to Michigan. Shortly thereafter, Terry was catastrophically injured in an auto accident in Michigan. It was not disputed that both the Integon and Auto-Owners policies were in effect at the time of the accident. Integon denied coverage, claiming it was not required to comply with Michigan’s No-Fault Act. Auto-Owners paid PIP benefits to Terry under his parents’ policy. Auto-Owners then filed this action, seeking a declaration that Integon knew, or had reason to know, that Laura and Terry were relocating to Michigan, but nonetheless renewed the North Carolina policy and, as a result, Integon was required to reimburse Auto-Owners for the benefits it had paid. Relying on the doctrine of imputed knowledge, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Auto-Owners.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Integon should have known that Laura and Terry relocated back to Michigan. In so holding, the court noted:
“Evidence that the Toyota was registered in Michigan and evidence that both drivers had Michigan driver’s licenses showed that Laura and Terry had connections to Michigan. However, in applying for the insurance policy, Laura and Terry represented that the vehicles would be garaged in North Carolina, they provided a North Carolina residential address, and then revised that address when they moved to another locality in North Carolina. Laura and Terry continually renewed, albeit belatedly, the policy from April 2009 through October 2011 without indicating to the [North Carolina agency] or Integon that they had relocated to Michigan or that the vehicles were garaged anywhere other than North Carolina.”
Given this lack of evidence, the Court of Appeals found the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of imputed knowledge was erroneous. The court said:
“In sum, the trial court erred as a matter of law in imputing … knowledge to Integon and there were no other facts to support that Integon reasonably should have known that its insureds were residents of Michigan at the time the North Carolina policy was issued, renewed, or at any time that it was in effect. Accordingly, Integon was not required to provide no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3012 and the trial court erred in granting Auto-Owners’ motion for summary disposition and in denying Integon’s counter-motion for summary disposition.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of whether the insured’s husband, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident, was a “named insured” under the North Carolina policy.
