Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259092; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Saad, and Bandstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Leased / Rented Vehicles
Motor Vehicle Code (Definition of Owner)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for plaintiff in this tort action, finding that although defendant-Lewis leased a vehicle for more than 30 days from defendant Enterprise Leasing, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Lewis “owned" the leased vehicle involved in the accident in which plaintiff was injured because Lewis entered into two leases, both of which were for less than 30 days.
Defendant Lewis leased a car from defendant Enterprise Leasing from April 23, 1999 to May 20, 1999, while her own car was undergoing repairs. Lewis leased another car from Enterprise beginning May 25, 1999. On May 30, 1999, while driving the rental car, defendant Friday was involved in an accident in which plaintiff was injured. Lewis returned the leased car on June 1, 1999. The trial court found that Lewis was liable for plaintiff’s injuries under the Owner Liability Act, which provides that a person is an owner if the person has the exclusive use of a vehicle for more than 30 days. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient that defendant owned the vehicle under MCL 257.37(a). In so holding, the court first reasoned the two lease periods for less than 30 days which involved separate lease agreements and separate vehicles could not be combined to create a lease term in excess of 30 days. Second, it determined there was no evidence regarding the lease term of the second agreement. In this regard, the court declared:
“We conclude that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion because there was a genuine issue of fact as to the nature of the arrangement between Lewis and Enterprise. Assuming the original lease term was indefinite, it lasted less than 30 days and Lewis turned in the car without it being involved in an accident. Because she was dissatisfied with the repairs to her own car, she sought another rental vehicle and State Farm agreed to pay for three days’ rental charges beginning May 25, 1999. Lewis then rented a different car pursuant to a second rental agreement. Recurrent leases of 30 days or less each are not to be combined to create a lease term in excess of 30 days, . . . especially where, as here, the original lease was for less than 30 days, it was terminated with no expectation of renewal, and the lessee rented a second car under a second lease several days later only by happenstance. The second rental agreement stated that it was for same-day use. Whether that meant that the parties anticipated that Lewis would keep the car for a few hours and return it but ended up keeping it longer or whether the May 25, 1999 return date is simply a mistake is not known. The additional terms on the back of the lease have not been provided, so it cannot be determined if those terms implied a particular lease period. Although Lewis stated in her affidavit that she did not intend to rent the car for more than 30 days, that statement is not determinative in that it was made after the fact. Thus, the facts presented are insufficient to warrant a determination that, at the inception of the second lease, it was intended that Lewis have exclusive use of the car for more than 30 days.”
