Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259504; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Owens, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, finding that although plaintiff, the daughter of defendant’s insureds, was listed on her parents’ no-fault policy as an occasional driver, plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under her parents’ policy because being listed as an occasional driver does not make one a named insured under the policy and plaintiff no longer resided with her parents at the time the accident occurred.
The plaintiff in this case was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident when her fiancé’s truck flipped over. Plaintiff and her fiancé lived in Maryland and her fiancé’s truck was insured for only $2,500 in PIP benefits. Plaintiff sought benefits under her parents’ Michigan no-fault insurance policy through defendant Citizens on which plaintiff was listed as an occasional driver. Plaintiff claimed she was entitled to benefits from Citizens under MCL 500.3114(1) because she was a person named in the policy. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed, stating that being listed as an occasional driver does not make a person a named insured. Moreover, the court noted the policy listed her parents as named insureds but did not list plaintiff.
The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that Citizens should be equitably estopped from denying coverage on the basis that she did not reside in her parents’ home because Citizens charged her parents higher premiums for her inclusion on the policy. In rejecting this claim, the court refused to hold that before insurers can enforce a contractual provision they must remind their insureds that the provision exists. In this regard, the court declared: “We decline to hold that an insurer may not enforce a contractual provision in a policy without first reminding the insured that the provision applies, particularly when the insured’s incorrect interpretation was not induced by the insurer.”
