Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 289579; Published
Judges Shapiro, Jansen, and Donofrio; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 289 Mich. App. 24, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Reimbursement of member claims [3104]
Nonresident claimants [3104]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Donofrio, the Court of Appeals held that where an insurer paid personal injury protection benefits on behalf of a non-resident that it was not required to pay, the insurer is not entitled to reimbursement from the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA).
The insurer in this case paid personal injury protection benefits on behalf of a policyholder who was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Florida. The policyholder, a doctor, lived and worked in Florida, but was also licensed in Michigan. He was also in the National Guard in Michigan and owned a home in Michigan. After the insurer paid benefits on the insured’s behalf, it requested reimbursement from the MCCA. The MCCA determined that because the insurer was not required by statute to pay the benefits, it was not entitled to reimbursement from the MCCA.
In holding that the MCCA was not required to reimburse the insurer, the Court of Appeals noted that under MCL 500.3104(2), the MCCA is only required to reimburse insurers for expenses paid on behalf of Michigan residents and those non-residents who are required to register their vehicles in the state of Michigan under MCL 500.3101(1). Therefore, the first question the court was required to determine was whether the insured was domiciled in Michigan. The court determined that the insured was not domiciled in Michigan based upon the following factors: the insured lived in Florida; worked in Florida; purchased his vehicle in Florida; registered the vehicle in Florida; obtained Florida license plates for the vehicle; and had a Florida driver’s license. Next, the court determined that the vehicle was not required to be registered in Michigan because the insured never drove the vehicle to or in Michigan. Therefore, based on the foregoing factors, the court determined that because the insured was domiciled in Michigan and was not a non-resident required to register his vehicle in Michigan, the insurer was not entitled to reimbursement. In this regard, the court stated:
“[T]here is no evidence in the record that the LeBaron, that was purchased, registered, titled, and garaged in Florida, was going to be driven to Michigan for any period of time in 1996 by Farhat, a nonresident who was living and working in Florida. Thus, Farhat’s LeBaron was not required to be registered in Michigan. Because Farhat was a nonresident and the LeBaron was not required to be registered in Michigan, MCL 500.3101(1) does not apply. In re Certified Question, 433 Mich at 719-720, 723-724. Defendant need only indemnify an insurer under MCL 500.3104(2) where the insurer paid benefits pursuant to a policy written in Michigan that provided for the required security under MCL 500.3101(1) for a vehicle required to be registered in Michigan. Id. Thus, for all of these reasons, we conclude that defendant was not required to reimburse plaintiff.”
