Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266677; Unpublished
Judges White, Fitzgerald, and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relative [3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Unequal Priority Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of two no-fault insurance companies in this priority dispute brought by a third no-fault insurer, finding the insurer of the vehicle that hit the bicyclist who was injured in the underlying incident was solely liable for the bicyclist’s personal injury protection benefits.
The accident at issue occurred when a bicyclist, Robert Lehner, cut in front of a vehicle driven by Rickey Sherman. Sherman had been following Robert and his friend, Scott Wetzel. Immediately after a vehicle which was traveling in the opposite direction had cleared, Sherman pulled into the opposite lane in order to pass the bicyclists. Unfortunately, at that same time Sherman was attempting to pass, Robert cut in front Sherman’s car and Sherman hit him.
Sherman’s no-fault insurer, Farm Bureau, paid Robert’s personal injury protection benefits but sought reimbursement from Auto-Owners and Allstate. Farm Bureau first claimed that Allstate was liable as the insurer of an involved vehicle under MCL 500.3115(1), where the vehicle it insured was traveling in the opposite direction immediately before the accident occurred. As to Auto-Owners, Farm Bureau claimed that it was liable under a policy it issued to Robert’s grandmother. In affirming summary disposition for both defendants, the Court of Appeals first determined that although Allstate’s insured, Carey Richards, had passed the bicyclist immediately before the accident occurred, her actions did not contribute to the accident in any manner. In this regard, the court explained:
“MCL 500.3115(1) states that, except as provided in MCL 500.3114(1), a person who suffers bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle shall claim PIP benefits from, first, the insurers of owners or registrants of vehicles involved in the accident. In Amy [v MIC General Ins Corp], we addressed the meaning of the phrase ‘involved in the accident,’ and concluded, inter alia, that a vehicle is involved in an accident if it ‘actively contributes to either the accident or the injuries sustained’ therein. . . . Physical contact is not required to show that a vehicle was involved in an accident, and fault is not a relevant consideration in the determination. However, a mere ‘but for’ connection between the operation of a vehicle and an accident is insufficient to show that the vehicle was involved in the accident. . . . The presence of Richards’ vehicle . . . may have caused Robert and Scott to slow their bicycles in order to allow her to pass before they crossed the road, and may have caused Sherman to slow his vehicle to allow her to pass before he passed the boys, but did not cause Sherman to move into the northbound lane, or cause Robert to ride his bicycle in front of Sherman’s vehicle. The accident occurred after Richards’ vehicle had passed the boys and Sherman’s vehicle. No activity of Richards’ vehicle actively contributed to Robert’s injuries. . . . The accident could have occurred in the same way it did had Richards’ vehicle not been present in the northbound lane . . . or had Richards not slowed her vehicle . . . Richards’ vehicle did not engage in any activity that caused the accident to occur. Allstate was entitled to summary disposition.”
In affirming summary disposition for Auto-Owners, the court noted that Robert did not reside with his grandmother and, therefore, neither §3114(1) nor §3115(1) requires Auto-Owners to provide benefits for Robert. In this regard, the court declared:
“Neither MCL 500.3114(1) nor MCL 500.3115(1) requires Auto-Owners to pay benefits for Robert. This language fairly admits of but one interpretation, . . . that being that Auto-Owners had no obligation to pay benefits for Robert because the no-fault act did not require it to do so. Auto-Owners was entitled to summary disposition.”
