Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #286388; Unpublished
Judges M.J. Kelly, K.F. Kelly, and Shapiro; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, finding that defendant’s policy which provided for out-of-state coverage for liability purposes did not extend to personal injury protection benefits.
The plaintiff in this case was involved in a motor vehicle accident. At the time, plaintiff was a Texas resident and was operating a vehicle that was licensed and registered in Texas. The vehicle was insured by defendant which conducts business in Texas and is not certified to provide personal injury protection benefits under Michigan’s No-Fault Act. Although defendant initially paid plaintiff PIP benefits, after it discontinued paying those benefits, plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits because she was not a Michigan resident and was an occupant of a vehicle that was not registered in Michigan, and defendant had not filed a certification in compliance with MCL 500.3163. The trial court agreed and granted defendant summary disposition.
On appeal, plaintiff argued that under the plain language of the insurance policy, she is entitled to PIP benefits. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the policy is divided into numerous sections. Under the liability coverage section, upon which plaintiff relies, the policy provides for out-of-state coverage. However, the policy contained no similar out-of-state coverage in the personal injury protection provision of the policy. Therefore, the court reasoned it followed that the out-of-state provision only pertained to liability coverage and did not provide a basis under which plaintiff was entitled to first-party benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“In our view, it is significant that the . . . provision is included within the ‘Liability Coverage’ section of the policy. The ‘Personal Injury Protection Provision’ section of the policy contains no similar ‘out of state’ provision regarding out of state coverage and otherwise makes no reference to the compulsory insurance laws of other states. It follows, reading the contract as a whole, that the ‘out of state’ provision only pertains to defendant’s responsibility to provide liability coverage, not to an obligation to provide first-party PIP benefit coverage. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision does not provide a basis for plaintiff to recover first-party PIP benefits under the policy.”
(emphasis in original)
