Michigan Supreme Court; Docket #151134; Published Order
Justices Young, Markman, McCormack, Kelly, Viviano, Zahra, and Bernstein; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; 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)(k)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
ORDER SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Michigan Supreme Court Order, the court granted oral argument on whether to grant the application for leave to appeal or take other action in this case involving the definition of “owner” under MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i).
Prior to the issuance of this Order, the Court of Appeals held in a unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion that plaintiff was not the owner of an uninsured vehicle within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(2)(k), even though she was the spouse of the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.
In its Order granting mini-oral argument in the case, the Supreme Court said:
“On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the plaintiff, who was driving an uninsured vehicle titled in the name of her husband, is an ‘owner’ under MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.”
