Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #287632; Unpublished
Judges Servito, Fitzgerald, and Bandstra; unanimous; per curiam
Offical Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [3113(b)]
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [3113(4)]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [3172(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion involving a priority dispute for no-fault benefits, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court improperly failed to determine whether the person who obtained no-fault insurance on the vehicle was actually an owner of the vehicle capable of insuring the vehicle.
The plaintiff in this case was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a friend when the accident in which she was injured occurred. Plaintiff sought no-fault benefits with defendant Progressive Michigan Insurance Company, who she claimed insured Kirk Hunter, the owner of the vehicle. Progressive refused to pay plaintiff’s no-fault benefits, insisting that Farm Bureau, the insurer that was appointed by the Assigned Claims Facility, was responsible for paying plaintiff’s no-fault benefits. Progressive argued that Hunter did not actually own the vehicle and, therefore, was incapable of insuring the vehicle. Plaintiff then filed an action for a declaration regarding which insurer was first in priority for purposes of paying her no-fault benefits. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, relying on its earlier decision in Iqbal v Bristol West Insurance Group, 278 Mich App 31; 748 NW2d 574 (2008), where the court held that, “MCL 500.3113(b) does not preclude an award of PIP benefits to an ‘owner’ of a vehicle if the vehicle is covered by a no-fault policy.”
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that under Iqbal, as long as there was coverage on a vehicle in which an injured person was a passenger, the plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits. Progressive admitted that plaintiff was entitled to recover benefits and admitted an insurance policy was in place on the vehicle. However, the issue in this case is a priority issue.
The court explained that under MCL 500.3101, et seq, if a person is injured while the occupant of a motor vehicle, that person must first look to no-fault insurance within his or her household. If the injured person is without no-fault coverage, MCL 500.3114(4) provides that the person should then look to the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle and then the insurer of the operator of the vehicle. If MCL 500.3114 is inapplicable, then under MCL 500.3172, a person may obtain PIP benefits through an assigned claims plan.
Plaintiff did not have an insurance policy, nor was plaintiff insured under a plan obtained by a family member residing in the same household. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to benefits under MCL 500.3114. However, Progressive argues that Hunter may not be an owner of the vehicle and, if that is the case, Progressive is not liable for plaintiff’s PIP benefits as a first priority insurer. The trial court did not address the issue of whether Hunter was an owner of the vehicle capable of obtaining insurance on the vehicle. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In this regard, the court stated:
“Progressive contends that Hunter may not be an owner of the vehicle under the statutory definition, and if that is the case, Progressive is not the first priority insurer. . . . The trial court relied solely upon the ‘controlling’ decision of Iqbal, which found the matter of ownership to be irrelevant based on the particular facts of that case.
The question of ownership is a question of fact to be decided by the fact finder. . . . Because the ownership question remains a factual dispute requiring resolution in order to properly determine the priority issue, and the trial court did not specifically determine that Hunter was an owner, or that there was no reasonable chance that further discovery would result in factual support for the nonmoving party, summary disposition was inappropriate. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand this matter for resolution of the ownership issue.”
