Interstate travel and multiple car ownership can raise interesting issues of insurance eligibility and coverage. In a recent case, the court of appeals addressed whether a husband and wife who resided in Michigan for most of the year, but who lived in Florida during the colder months, were permitted to make a claim for Michigan No-Fault benefits, after a serious accident occurred in Florida while they were occupying a vehicle they owned that was registered and insured in Florida.
The court held that they could not recover Michigan no-fault benefits, because the couple were both “owners” of the vehicle and they did not carry Michigan no-fault PIP insurance on the vehicle. The trial court had previously ruled that the husband could not recover PIP benefits, because he was an “owner” of the vehicle and was therefore precluded from coverage because the vehicle did not carry Michigan PIP insurance. The trial court, however, determined that the wife was not precluded from PIP benefits, because it concluded that she was not an “owner” or an “owner by use” of the vehicle.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, holding that the wife was barred from Michigan PIP coverage as an “owner by use” within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i), which includes in the definition of “ownership” a person renting a motor vehicle or having the use of a motor vehicle for a period that is greater than 30 days. The Court reasoned that the wife was allowed to drive the vehicle, and she had her own set of keys and did not need permission to use the vehicle. In other words, the mere fact that she was not “on the title” did not mean she was not “an owner by use” under the statutory definition. Thus, both the husband and wife were “owners” under the statute, and therefore barred from PIP coverage due to their lack of Michigan No-Fault insurance coverage on the car involved in the Florida motor vehicle accident.
The Court of Appeals decision appears unsurprising and consistent with the statutory scheme and case law, but it is a good reminder for people to think about their insurance needs as they own residences and vehicles in more than one state. It is also a good reminder that under the Michigan statutory scheme there can be more than one “owner” of a vehicle, and the term “owner” extends more broadly than merely the “titled owner” and includes those who have a right to use a vehicle under certain circumstances. The case is Homeowners Insurance Co and Auto-Owners Insurance Co v Jankowski, unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals 331934, May 11, 2017.
Learn more about our expertise in No-Fault Insurance, personal injury, and car accident law.
NO FAULT INSURANCE PERSONAL INJURY Car Accident LawAbout the Author
