Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257509; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Cavanagh, and Saad; 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)]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [3113(b)]
Scope of Mandated Coverages[3131(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant Auto Club Insurance Company’s motion for summary disposition and entry of a $122,991.44 award for plaintiff, holding that where plaintiff’s vehicle was required to be registered in Michigan and the security required by MCL 500.3131 was not in effect at the time of the accident, plaintiff is not entitled to benefits under § 3113(b) of the No-Fault Act. The plaintiff in this case was injured in an accident that occurred in Illinois while he was driving his semi trailer which he purchased in Michigan. Although plaintiff is a Michigan resident, he registered the vehicle in Oklahoma and insured it through Connecticut Indemnity. The Connecticut Indemnity policy provided Michigan no-fault coverage but excluded coverage if the vehicle was for hire at the time of the accident. The accident at issue occurred while plaintiff was hauling a trailer insured by Legion Insurance Company. Plaintiff sought no-fault benefits from Connecticut Indemnity. Connecticut denied the claim under its for hire exclusion. Plaintiff then filed an action naming Connecticut Indemnity, Legion Insurance and ACIA, with which plaintiff had insured two other vehicles. All three defendants moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted Connecticut Indemnity and Legion Insurance’s motions, but denied ACIA’s motion.
In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals reasoned that because plaintiff was a resident of Michigan, he was required by MCL 500.3101 to register the vehicle in Michigan. Thus, under MCL 500.3113(b), plaintiff is not entitled to recover no-fault benefits unless he maintained the security required by §3101. Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that he maintained the required security. The Connecticut policy was only effective when the vehicle was not being used for hire and the Legion policy did not include plaintiff’s semi-truck and did not specifically provide for Michigan no-fault coverage. In this regard, the court stated:
“Because the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff’s semi-truck was a vehicle required to be registered in Michigan, and that the security required by §3131 was not in effect at the time of the accident, pursuant to MCL [500.3113(b)], plaintiff is not entitled to PIP benefits. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying ACIA’s motion for summary disposition.”
