Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 106522; Published
Judges Sullivan, Gribbs, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 181 Mich App 600; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Definition of Owner [§3101(2)(h)]
Definition of Registrant [§3101(2)(i)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
Motor Vehicle Code (Registration and Title Requirements) (MCL 257.201, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous, published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of summary disposition, holding that Auto Owners must pay plaintiff’s PIP benefits pursuant to the priority provisions of §3115.
Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle which had been previously purchased by third-party defendant, Leon Gierucki. Leon Gierucki registered the vehicle in his name and acquired insurance through Auto Owners. However, prior to the accident, Leon transferred ownership of the vehicle to his daughter, Roxanne, who resided with him. Leon signed the back of the certificate of title and gave it to his daughter, who moved out of her father's home, taking possession of the vehicle. The accident occurred on September 13, 1985, when plaintiff was struck by the vehicle while it was being driven by another person with the consent of Roxanne.
The Auto Owners insurance policy acquired by Leon was canceled six days following the accident. On November 6, 1985, Roxanne filed the requisite documentation to transfer the title and registration for the car into her own name. Since the plaintiff had no motor vehicle insurance, nor was there any available through her household, she sought PIP benefits from Auto Owners on the basis that it was the insurer of the "owner or registrant" of the motor vehicle involved in the accident pursuant to §3115(1)(a).
Auto Owners, in a declaratory judgment action against Gierucki and the Assigned Claims Facility, contended that the phrase "insurers of owners or registrants" contained in §3115(l)(a) should be construed to preclude coverage from Auto Owners and to result in coverage from the Assigned Claims Facility.
Auto Owners first contended that the words "owners or registrants" should have the same meaning for purposes of the No-Fault Act. The Court of Appeals held that by using "or" between owners and registrants, the Legislature intended owners and registrants to constitute two distinct terms, each representing two separate categories of individuals. Therefore, Auto Owners' argument that they be considered as interchangeable lacked merit.
The court also rejected the contention that Leon Gierucki should not be considered the "registrant" of the vehicle. Since registrant is not defined in the No-Fault Act, the court gave it its ordinary meaning and held that as of the date of the accident the registration was still in Leon's name. Consequently, Leon is deemed to be the registrant of the vehicle.
The court also rejected Auto Owners' argument that the provisions of MCLA 257.240 precluded coverage under its policy. That section provides that the owner of a motor vehicle who has made a bone fide sale by transfer of his title and who has delivered possession of such vehicle and the certificate of title, is not liable for any damages thereafter resulting from negligent operation of the vehicle.
In rejecting this argument, the court noted that while liability insurance coverage and motor vehicle damage insurance coverage are based upon ownership or maintenance or use of the covered automobile, PIP benefits are not conditioned on the ownership of an insured automobile. Citing the case of Madar v League General Insurance Company, 152 Mich App 734 (1986), the court noted that there it was held that the prior transfer of ownership in a motor vehicle named in the insurance policy does not terminate the personal protection insurance coverage of the policy. Rights created under an insurance policy become fixed as of the date of the accident.
Finally, the court held that since the Assigned Claims Facility established pursuant to §3172 is an insurer of last priority, the finding that Auto Owners was of a higher priority precluded any coverage under the Assigned Claims Facility.
