Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Transport Insurance Company v Home Insurance Company; (COA-PUB, 5/15/1984; RB #736)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 68352; Published  
Judges Kelly, Beasley, and O'Brien; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 134 Mich App 645; Link to Opinion alt    


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]  
Rights and Immunities Applicable to Nonresident Claimants and Foreign Insurers [§3163(3)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable    


CASE SUMMARY:  
This unanimous per curiam Opinion involved an issue of first impression under the foreign insurer provisions of §3163. The Court of Appeals held that under that section, a foreign insurer is obligated to provide no-fault coverage to one of its nonresident insureds injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan, even though the motor vehicle operated by the insured was not one which was covered under the terms of the foreign policy because of certain policy exclusions. The focus is not on whether the motor vehicle is covered but whether the person is insured under a policy issued by the foreign insurer. The Court held:

"Our reading of § 3163 according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its words does not persuade us that the motor vehicle owned, operated, maintained or used by the non-resident must also be one that is covered under the terms of the foreign policy. In our view, the only conditions of carrier liability imposed under § 3163 are (1) certification of the carrier in Michigan (2) existence of an automobile liability policy between the nonresident and the certified carrier and (3) a sufficient causal relationship between the nonresident's injuries and his or her ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Inasmuch as the undisputed facts of this case reveal that these three conditions of liability have been met, we find no error in the trial court's reliance on §3163."

In support of its reasoning, the Court of Appeals relied upon the Supreme Court's previous opinion in Lee v DAIIE (item number 489) which held that the right to collect PIP benefits does not require involvement of a motor vehicle which was registered, insured or covered. The only requirement for basic entitlement is the involvement of a motor vehicle.


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram