Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285104 and #285105; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Wilder, and M.J. Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Compulsory Insurance Requirements for Owners or Registrants of Motor Vehicles Required to be Registered [3101(1)]
Definition of Owner [3101(2)(h)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous, unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff Zoerman and his health care providers, finding that plaintiff was entitled to personal injury protection benefits because he was not an owner under MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) of the uninsured vehicle when the accident in which he was injured occurred.
The plaintiff in this case was injured while driving a vehicle owned by his wife which was not insured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits was assigned to defendant by the Assigned Claims Facility. Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim on the basis that he was an owner under MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) [formerly codified as MCL 500.3101(2)(g)(i)] because he had a right to use the vehicle for 30 days or more and because the vehicle was uninsured. Plaintiff denied he was an owner of the vehicle and filed this action to recover benefits from the defendant. Plaintiff’s health care providers filed a separate action to recover the costs of their services. The two actions were consolidated.
Defendant moved for summary disposition regarding the issue of ownership. The trial court determined there was a question of fact with regard to plaintiff’s right to use the vehicle and denied the motion. After a jury trial, the court determined there was no evidence that plaintiff was an owner of the vehicle and directed a verdict in favor of plaintiffs.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff and his wife lived together and the vehicle was kept at their residence. However, there was no evidence plaintiff had regular or exclusive use of the vehicle. Instead, the evidence showed that plaintiff used the vehicle sporadically and that plaintiff did not have the right to use the vehicle when he wanted. Instead, he had to ask his wife for permission to use it. In addition, his wife possessed the only set of keys to the vehicle. Moreover, there were occasions when plaintiff’s wife did not allow plaintiff to use the vehicle. And, even though some of plaintiff’s income may have been used to purchase the vehicle, the vehicle was purchased without plaintiff’s knowledge. Furthermore, plaintiff’s wife was responsible for the maintenance on the vehicle. Under Detroit Medical Center v Titan Insurance Company, 284 Mich App 490 (2009), these facts show that although plaintiff was periodically allowed to use the vehicle, he did not have a right to use it. Therefore, the court held that the evidence did not establish that plaintiff was an owner of the vehicle under MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i). In this regard, the court stated:
“The evidence in this case showed that Kevin and Brandy lived together and the vehicle was kept at their residence. . . . [H]owever, there was no evidence that Kevin had exclusive, or even regular, use of the vehicle. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that Kevin had used the vehicle only sporadically during the 14 months that Brandy owned the vehicle. Significantly, . . . the evidence showed that Kevin did not have the right to use the vehicle when he wanted. Rather, he had to ask Brandy’s permission to use it. Also, Brandy possessed the only set of keys for the vehicle, which Kevin would have to get from her when she allowed him to use it. There were occasions when Brandy did not allow Kevin to use the vehicle when he asked. Although some of Kevin’s money may have been used to purchase the vehicle, it was undisputed that Brandy purchased the vehicle without Kevin’s knowledge. Maintenance of the vehicle was also the responsibility of Brandy, not Kevin. . . . [T]hese undisputed facts show that Brandy periodically allowed Kevin to use the vehicle, but he did not have the right to use it. Thus, the evidence did not establish that Kevin was an owner of the vehicle pursuant to MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i).”
