Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 57093; Published
Judges Allen, R. B. Burns, and Gillis; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 115 Mich App 675; Link to Opinion
Legislative Purpose and Intent
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the priority provisions of §3114(3) were meant to apply in any situation in which an employee is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by his employer, regardless of whether the injury occurred in the course of his employment. Therefore, the employer's no-fault carrier was liable to pay no-fault wage loss benefits in this case, even though the employee was using the employer's vehicle outside the scope of employment and without specific authorization.
The Court held that the disqualification provisions of §3113(a) did not apply to change the result because that section only disqualifies a person from receiving PIP benefits who uses a motor vehicle "which he had taken unlawfully". In this case, the employee had taken the vehicle lawfully and within the scope of his employment but continued to use the vehicle for his own purposes after working hours. Therefore, the employee was not disqualified under this section.