Gividen v. Bristol West Insurance
305 Mich. App. 639
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Steven Gividen was seriously injured when his ORV collided with a heavily modified 1976 Jeep driven by Brandon Northrup; Northrup is not a party.
- At the time of the accident plaintiff had no no-fault (PIP) coverage and did not live with someone who did; Northrup’s Jeep was insured under an out-of-state (Texas) policy administered by nonparty insurers including Bristol West and Farmers.
- The Jeep had major modifications: nonfunctional headlights/taillights/signals/speedometer, removed metal shell replaced with fiberglass, missing doors and rearview mirror, roll bar, and off-road tires—evidence the Jeep was no longer designed for public highway operation.
- Farmers denied PIP; plaintiff submitted to the Assigned Claims Facility, which assigned Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA), and ACIA paid PIP benefits but later sought reimbursement.
- Plaintiff sued for PIP benefits; trial court found the Jeep was not a "motor vehicle" under Michigan’s no-fault act but nevertheless awarded plaintiff PIP under the policy’s out-of-state coverage and entered judgment for ACIA for reimbursement; Bristol West defendants appealed and plaintiff cross-appealed.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, holding the Jeep was an ORV (not a motor vehicle) and that the policy did not obligate insurers to provide Michigan no-fault PIP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified Jeep is a "motor vehicle" under Michigan no-fault statute | Jeep is a motor vehicle; plaintiff entitled to PIP | Jeep was so modified it was not designed for highway use and is excluded as an ORV | Jeep not a motor vehicle; classified as ORV, so statutorily excluded from PIP |
| Whether the insurance policy’s definition of "your covered auto" requires payment of Michigan PIP | Policy covers the Jeep so PIP applies despite ORV status | Policy does not define "motor vehicle" to override statute; no PIP declared in policy | Policy language did not obligate insurers to provide Michigan no-fault PIP for an ORV |
| Whether the out-of-state coverage clause triggers Michigan compulsory no-fault coverage | Out-of-state clause imports Michigan PIP to cover plaintiff | Clause applies only if incident is an "auto accident" under policy and statute; Jeep was not a motor vehicle | Out-of-state clause did not apply because collision was not an auto accident under Michigan no-fault statute |
| Whether insurers are estopped from asserting ORV defense after earlier denials | Insurers initially denied on other bases and thus waived new defenses | Denial reserved rights; estoppel cannot expand coverage beyond the policy or statute | No estoppel; insurers not barred from asserting Jeep was not a motor vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich 558; 719 NW2d 73 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Urbain v. Beierling, 301 Mich App 114; 835 NW2d 455 (summary disposition factual-sufficiency standard)
- Schoenith v. Auto Club of Mich, 161 Mich App 232; 409 NW2d 795 (vehicle modified off public highway may not be a motor vehicle under no-fault)
- Apperson v. Citizens Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Mich App 799; 344 NW2d 812 (similar ORV exclusion analysis)
- Mich. Twp. Participating Plan v. Fed. Ins. Co., 233 Mich App 422; 592 NW2d 760 (estoppel/waiver by insurer principles)
- Lee v. Evergreen Regency Coop., 151 Mich App 281; 390 NW2d 183 (insurer estoppel cannot broaden policy coverage)
- Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 233 Mich App 38; 592 NW2d 395 (distinguished: factual context where insured’s residency was at issue)