Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266024; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Saad, and Bandstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Exception for Occupants [3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff, finding that where the vehicle in which he was a passenger was uninsured, and where the driver was not a named insured under her husband’s policy nor was she living with him, defendant, the assigned claims insurer, was properly found to be liable for plaintiff’s benefits. The plaintiff in this case was injured in an auto accident while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle. The driver’s husband, with whom she did not live, was insured under a policy with Titan Insurance Company. The driver was not a named insured under the policy. The Assigned Claims Facility assigned plaintiff’s claim to defendant Farmers Insurance Company. When Farmers refused to provide plaintiff benefits, claiming Titan was higher in priority, plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that in order for plaintiff to recover from Titan, under MCL 500.3114(4)(b), the driver had to be an insured under the Titan policy. However, because the driver was not a named insured and did not reside with her husband, she was not an insured under his policy with Titan. Therefore, the trial court properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the Titan policy. In this regard, the court stated:
“We hold that the trial court correctly concluded that Titan was not Smith-Lane’s insurer, and that for that reason, Titan was not in a higher priority than Farmers, and had no obligation to reimburse Farmers for PIP benefits paid to plaintiff. . . . [P]ursuant to MCL 500.3114(4)(b), in order for plaintiff to be entitled to benefits under Titan’s policy, Smith-Lane must be considered an ‘insured’ under the policy. Smith-Lane was related to the named insured by marriage, but she did not reside in the same household with the named insured on the date the accident occurred. She did not meet the policy definition of an ‘insured.’ Logically, then, Titan cannot be considered Smith-Lane’s insurer if Smith-Lane is not an insured. Titan’s policy fairly admits of but one interpretation, i.e., that Smith-Lane was not an insured. . . . The trial court correctly held that plaintiff was not entitled to claim benefits under Titan’s policy, and that Farmers, as the assigned carrier, was liable for payment of benefits to plaintiff.”
