Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320784; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Saad, and Riordan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Starr Indemnity was not obligated to pay PIP or UM benefits to the vehicle’s owner/driver and its passengers, because:
1) the no-fault policy that Starr Indemnity had issued plaintiff’s boyfriend, although it listed plaintiff as the primary driver of the vehicle, did not list plaintiff as the “named insured” pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1), and
2) plaintiffs did not meet the policy’s requisite definitions for coverage under MCL 500.3114(4).
In this case, PIP benefits were being sought for injuries arising out of an accident involving a PT Cruiser. The PT Cruiser was being driven by its owner, plaintiff Tearra Mosby, and was being occupied by plaintiffs Matifa Culbert and Jermaine Williams. The PT Cruiser was insured under a no-fault policy issued by defendant Starr Indemnity to plaintiff-Mosby’s boyfriend, Traves Fudge, who was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The no-fault policy issued to Fudge listed him as the named insured; however, plaintiff-Mosby was merely listed as a primary driver of the PT Cruiser. The trial court denied Starr Indemnity’s motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held that, under the circumstances, Starr Indemnity was not liable for PIP benefits under the §3114(1) and §3114(4).
In finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to benefits under §3114(1), the Court of Appeals said:
“Although Fudge and Mosby are listed as drivers under the policy, only Fudge is a named insured. Nor do the individual plaintiffs claim to be married to or relatives of Fudge. Accordingly, they are not entitled to no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3114(1).”
In finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to PIP benefits under §3114(4), the Court of Appeals said:
“Mosby is not an ‘insured’ under … the contract because she is neither ‘you’ (the named insured, Fudge, or his spouse), nor one of Fudge’s family members as defined under the policy. For the same reason, Mosby is not an insured [under other policy provisions]. … [A]n ‘insured’ is an individual injured in an accident involving a vehicle ‘operated by you or any family member[,]’ and Mosby is neither ‘you’ nor a ‘family member’ under the policy. … Because the individual plaintiffs were not occupying a vehicle that meets the definition of ‘your covered auto,’ none of the individual plaintiffs meet [the] definition of an ‘insured.’ Accordingly, none of the individual plaintiffs were insured under the policy, and Starr Co is not liable to pay their PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(4). As such, the trial court erred when it denied Starr Co’s motion for summary disposition.”
Based on the finding that none of the plaintiffs were “named insureds,” the Court of Appeals concluded the policy did not provide UM coverage to any of the plaintiffs. In so holding, the court noted:
“None of the individual plaintiffs meet the definition of ‘you,’ as none of them are named insureds or a spouse of Fudge, who is the only named insured under the policy. Nor are any of the individual plaintiffs family members of Fudge, as none of the individual plaintiffs are related to Fudge by blood, marriage, or adoption. And as discussed …, the PT Cruiser does not meet the policy’s general definition of ‘your covered auto.’ Accordingly, the policy does not provide uninsured motorist coverage to the individual plaintiffs.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ordering that Starr Indemnity’s motion for summary disposition be granted.
