Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #321638; Unpublished
Judges Gadola, Jansen, and Beckering; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Priority Rules for Payment of PIP Benefits [§3114]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
$500,000 Cap for Certain Nonresident Claims [§3163(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a priority dispute over which insurer was obligated to pay PIP benefits for injuries sustained by a non-resident pedestrian, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s finding that the injured pedestrian’s out-of-state insurer was responsible for payment of PIP benefits, because the non-resident pedestrian was not operating a vehicle as required under MCL 500.3163.
Marana Czap, a minor who was domiciled in Pennsylvania with her mother and grandparents, was visiting her father in Michigan when she was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street. Following the accident, the injured minor initially received PIP benefits, which were paid by the Michigan driver’s no-fault insurer, Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau then obtained reimbursement from the father’s Michigan no-fault insurer, Home Owners. Home Owners then brought this action, seeking to obtain reimbursement from the Pennsylvania insurer, Allstate, which provided benefits to the child’s grandparents. Home Owners moved for summary disposition, claiming that under §3163, Allstate was responsible for coverage because Czap domiciled with her grandparents in Pennsylvania at the time of the accident. Allstate argued, however, that §3163(1) precluded coverage when the out-of-state party was not operating a vehicle in Michigan. The trial court ruled Allstate was liable for benefits because the purpose of §3163(4) was to extend coverage to non-occupants of motor vehicles.
After applying the plain language of §3163, the Court of Appeals held that Home Owners was not entitled to reimbursement from Allstate. In finding that Allstate was not liable, the Court of Appeals relied on Mills v Auto-Owners Ins, 413 Mich 567 (1982), and Edquist v Cadillac Mut Ins Co, 119 Mich App 801 (1982). Looking to these rulings, the court said:
“[B]ased on both the plain language of the statute and the applicable caselaw, Czap was not entitled to claim PIP-benefits from defendant pursuant to MCL 500.3163(1) because her injuries did not arise ‘from the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle by an out-of-state resident.’ Czap’s injuries arose when she was a pedestrian; they had nothing to do with her ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.”
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals further rejected the argument that in adopting §3163(4), the Legislature implicitly overruled both Mills and Edquist, and amended §3163(1) to provide coverage to non-occupants of motor vehicles. In this regard, the court said:
“Looking at the plain language of MCL 500.3163(4), it is clear that the use of the word ‘If’ at the start of the subsection indicates that its application is conditioned on an insurer of an out-of-state resident’s obligation to provide benefits under §§3163(1) to (3). In other words, §3163(4) sets forth a conditional compound. Because plaintiff cannot show that defendant is ‘required to provide benefits’ pursuant to §3163(1), §3163(4) does not apply.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for Home Owners and remanded for entry of summary disposition for Allstate.
