Adams v Citizens Insurance Company of America; (COA-UNP, 3/4/2010, RB #3118)

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #290037; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Meter, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not applicable, Link to Opinion

CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court Order granting defendant insurer summary disposition under MCL 500.3173 and MCL 500.3113(b), on plaintiff’s claim for personal injury protection benefits through the Assigned Claims Facility, finding that plaintiff was injured while sitting in his uninsured parked motor vehicle which was involved in an accident with another vehicle.

The plaintiff in this case was injured while sitting in an uninsured vehicle his mother owned that was parked in a driveway when it was hit by another vehicle.  The plaintiff sought personal injury protection benefits through the Assigned Claims Facility under §3173.  The claim was assigned to defendant Citizens Insurance, which denied plaintiff benefits on the basis that he was the owner of the uninsured vehicle that was involved in the accident.  The trial court agreed, and granted the insurer’s motion for summary disposition.

In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff’s mother owned the vehicle, plaintiff had exclusive use and control of the vehicle for more than 30 days but had failed to obtain no-fault insurance.  Therefore, the court concluded, plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits through the Assigned Claims Facility under MCL 500.3113(b), which provides that an injured owner of an uninsured motor vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident is not entitled to personal injury protection benefits.  In so finding, the court relied on its decision in Roberts v Titan Ins Co (On Reconsideration), 282 Mich App 339; 764 NW2d 304 (2009), where the court found that there was no question of fact a person was a statutory owner of a vehicle where the owner gave the person exclusive use of the vehicle for more than 30 days.  In this case, although the court noted that the plaintiff claimed he did not have time to use the vehicle for more than 30 days, he did have exclusive use and  control of the vehicle for more than 30 days.  Furthermore, the very fact that plaintiff did not have to ask permission to sit in the vehicle to smoke his cigarette indicates ownership of the vehicle.  In this regard, the court stated:

“[I]n Roberts v Titan Ins Co (On Reconsideration), 282 Mich App 339, 343, 356; 764 NW2d 304 (2009), this Court found that there was no question of fact with respect to an individual’s status as a statutory owner where the deposition testimony established that the title owner gave keys to a vehicle to an individual for her use after her own vehicle broke down, and she thereafter had exclusive use of the vehicle and used it for all of her daily needs. . . . 

In this case, . . . plaintiff’s deposition testimony raises questions regarding whether he was so busy taking care of his mother that he did not have time for personal activities. . . .  But there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff had exclusive use of the Impala for at least 30 days. . . .  Reasonable minds could not differ in concluding that plaintiff’s possessory use of the Impala comported with the concept of ownership.  Indeed, the very act that plaintiff claims caused him to be in the Impala at the time of the accident comports with the concept of ownership.  Plaintiff testified that he went out to the Impala to smoke a cigarette.  He did not indicate that he asked or needed his mother’s permission to do so.  The trial court did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to plaintiff’s status as a statutory owner for purposes of MCL 500.3113(b).”