Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325402; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Fort Hood, and Borrello; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(k)(iii)]
Priority Rules for Payment of PIP Benefits [§3114]
Obligation of the Assigned Claims Insurer to Preserve and Enforce Indemnity or Reimbursement Rights Against Third Parties [§3175(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a used car dealership remained the owner of a vehicle under MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(iii), because it held legal title to the vehicle at the time of the claimant’s accident. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held the dealership’s no-fault insurer was responsible for paying PIP benefits under the priority rules set forth in MCL 500.3114.
The claimant in this case was injured while driving a vehicle, with permission, from a car dealership. The circumstances of the claimant obtaining possession of the vehicle from the dealership were unclear in the Court of Appeals opinion; however, the court noted that the dealership retained title ownership of the vehicle, despite the fact that the claimant had taken possession of and was driving the vehicle. After being unable to identify a no-fault insurer after the accident, the claimant sought PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility. The MACF assigned the claim to plaintiff Citizens Insurance Company. Citizens paid benefits, and then sought reimbursement from defendant Auto Owners, which insured the dealership. Citizens argued the dealership remained the “owner” of the vehicle at the time of the accident because it held legal title to the vehicle, pursuant to §3101(2)(k)(iii). The trial court granted summary disposition to Citizens and ordered Auto-Owners to reimburse Citizens $62,540.52.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that summary disposition was properly granted for Citizens, and that Auto-Owners was the higher priority insurer under §3114.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals said it was undisputed the dealership held legal title to the vehicle on the day of the accident and that it was the “owner” of the vehicle, unless it had leased the vehicle to the claimant. Examining whether the dealership had leased the vehicle to the claimant, the court said:
“We agree with the trial court that no reasonable juror could determine that the transaction in question was a lease. The sales document acting as the receipt for the transaction contains absolutely no reference to a lease. It never uses the word lease, lessee, lessor, rent, lease-to-own, or lease with the option to buy. Instead, the form refers to … ‘buyer[s],’ the price to be paid as the purchase price, and indicates that the car was ‘sold as is.’ Further, [the claimant] expressed no understanding that the transaction was a lease. … Therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact that this transaction was not a lease.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals held the dealership still owned the vehicle at the time of the accident, and because Auto-Owners insured the dealership, Auto-Owners was the higher priority insurer, entitling Citizens to reimbursement.
