Listen to this article
Where the Court of Appeals misinterpreted MCL 500.3113(a) when it held that a plaintiff was barred from recovering PIP benefits on the ground that she was unlawfully operating a motor vehicle, a remand is necessary because the relevant question is whether the motor vehicle had been taken unlawfully.
“In this case, we must determine whether, at the time of the motor vehicle accident in which she was injured, plaintiff ‘was willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and [she] knew or should have known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully.’ MCL 500.3113(a). If so, then she is barred from recovering personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.
“The Court of Appeals misinterpreted MCL 500.3113(a) when it held that plaintiff was barred from recovering PIP benefits on the ground that there was no genuine question of fact that she was unlawfully operating the motor vehicle. Swoope v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest, 350 Mich App 104, 107-108; 29 NW3d 695 (2024). It reached this conclusion, in part, by erroneously extending dicta from Ahmed v Tokio Marine America Ins Co, 337 Mich App 1; 972 NW2d 860 (2021). Having considered the text of MCL 500.3113(a) and our previous opinions interpreting its controlling language, we hold that when PIP benefit eligibility is challenged under MCL 500.3113(a), the relevant question is whether the motor vehicle or motorcycle had been taken unlawfully—a distinct inquiry from whether the vehicle had been operated unlawfully. …
“Because the Court of Appeals analyzed MCL 500.3113(a) by conducting the wrong inquiry, we reverse. However, because the Court of Appeals inadequately considered defendant’s alternative ground for summary disposition under MCL 500.3113(a)—that plaintiff’s actions constituted an unlawful taking of the motor vehicle—we remand to the Court of Appeals to address this question. …
“By holding that plaintiff’s unlawful operation of the motor vehicle barred her recovery of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a), the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the statute. Whether a claimant is barred from recovery by MCL 500.3113(a) turns on whether the vehicle was taken—rather than operated or used—unlawfully and whether the claimant knew or should have known that it had been taken unlawfully. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred, and we reverse. However, the Court of Appeals failed to address the alternative ground for summary disposition raised by defendant regarding how plaintiff’s taking of the vehicle was unlawful. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
