Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 162236 and 163810; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Taylor, and Servitto; 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)]
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents [§3111]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that §3111 of the no-fault act which governs the payment of personal protection insurance benefits for out-of-state accidents, requires that for the injured party to receive no-fault benefits, he must be occupying a vehicle whose owner was insured under a PIP policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident.
Jonathan Harwood, a minor, suffered a severe head injury in an automobile accident in Missouri. At the time of the accident, he was driving a 1977 Dodge Omni, which had been purchased one week earlier for Jonathan by his father, Edwin. Edwin claimed that Jonathan actually purchased the vehicle, but stated that his (Edwin's) name appeared on the title because he had to co-sign for the loan.
There was no dispute that at the time of the accident, the Dodge Omni was uninsured. Sometime prior to the accident, Edwin's father, Russell, who did not live with Edwin, added Edwin's three vehicles to his own insurance policy after Edwin's policy lapsed due to non-payment. When the accident occurred Edwin was listed as the principal driver of Edwin's three vehicles. The Dodge Omni was not one of the three vehicles covered under Russell's policy.
Auto Owners denied coverage for Jonathan's injuries on the grounds that the automobile was uninsured at the time of the accident. Plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of Auto Owners because, at the time of the accident, Jonathan was occupying a vehicle whose owner (Edwin) was insured under a PIP policy. In upholding the trial court's decision, the Court of Appeals said that §3111 of the no-fault act governing out-of-state accidents requires that the vehicle involved in the accident must be insured under a personal protection insurance policy before an insurer may become obligated to honor a claim for personal injury protection benefits. Section 3111 states:
Personal protection insurance benefits are payable for accidental bodily injuries suffered in an accident occurring out of this state, if.. .the person whose injury is the basis of the claim was at the time of the accident a named insured under a personal protection insurance policy, his spouse, a relative of either domiciled in the same household or an occupant of a vehicle involved in the accident "whose owner or registrant was insured under a personal protection insurance policy. . . . " (emphasis added)
Plaintiff argued that §3111 was satisfied because Jonathan was occupying a vehicle whose owner, Edwin, was insured under a PIP policy because Edwin's three automobiles had been added to his father's (Russell's) policy. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court in Rohlman v Hawkeye Security Insurance, 442 Mich 520 (1993) had recently interpreted this section as requiring that the "vehicle involved in the accident" be insured under a personal protection insurance policy. Requiring the vehicle itself to be insured encourages motorists to comply with §3101(1) which requires the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle to maintain insurance for the vehicle.
The court also rejected plaintiffs argument that Edwin was a "named insured" under Russell's insurance policy with defendant. Plaintiffs argument was that §3111 provides that a "relative of a named insured under a PIP policy domiciled in the same household" can recover PIP benefits. Although there was no question that Jonathan was a resident relative of Edwin, the court held that neither Russell's policy nor the no-fault act defined "named insured." In this instance, Russell was the insured under the specific policy, and Edwin was merely a "designated principal driver." The court held that under the terms of the policy, Edwin was merely an "insured," and that merely listing a person as a designated driver on a no-fault policy does not make the person a "named insured."
The court also rejected plaintiffs argument for reformation of the insurance contract, holding that there was no claim of mutual mistake or fraudulent or inequitable conduct.
Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of summary disposition due to a material fact regarding ownership of the 1977 Dodge Omni. Auto Owners claimed that Jonathan was the "equitable owner" of the vehicle, even though his father, Edwin, was the title holder. If Jonathan was the owner of the vehicle, he could not recover PIP benefits because the Omni was uninsured at the time of the accident under §3113(b). The Court of Appeals held that the question of ownership was one of facts that is to be decided by the fact finder. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of Auto Owners' motion for summary disposition was upheld.
