Home-Owners Insurance Company v. Daniel L Ramp, 328979

Daniel and Peggy Ramp, Michigan residents, own a condominium in Florida; Daniel was injured in Florida when his golf car was struck and tipped, pinning his leg.
Daniel sought Michigan no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) and underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under their Home-Owners Insurance policy; insurer denied benefits and sued for declaratory relief.
Defendants moved for summary disposition seeking PIP and UIM benefits; insurer moved for summary disposition denying coverage based on policy exclusions and the character of the golf car.
The trial court granted partial summary disposition to the insurer on the PIP issue, finding the accident occurred outside Michigan and the golf car lacked PIP coverage, and denied summary disposition on UIM coverage.
On appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals (leave granted), the sole question considered was whether the trial court erred in ruling that defendants did not meet MCL 500.3111’s requirements for out-of-state PIP benefits.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it held that MCL 500.3111’s plain language entitles a named insured to out-of-state PIP benefits when the accident occurs in the United States, and Daniel was a named insured injured in Florida.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Daniel is entitled to out-of-state PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111	MCL 500.3111 requires the vehicle involved to be insured under a no-fault policy; the golf car lacked such coverage, so no benefits	MCL 500.3111’s plain language entitles a person who was a named insured at the time of the accident to PIP benefits even if the involved vehicle lacks no-fault coverage	Reversed trial court: Daniel is entitled to PIP under MCL 500.3111 because the accident occurred in the U.S. and he was a named insured at the time of the accident
Whether the insurer’s policy exclusion bars recovery (policy-based exclusion)	Policy excludes PIP for named insureds occupying a vehicle owned/registered by them that lacks policy benefits, so coverage is barred	Defendants contended exclusions did not preclude coverage (argued statutory entitlement)	Court declined to address the policy-exclusion argument on appeal (issue not presented by the grant of leave)

Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich. App. 618 (procedural standard: de novo review of cross-motions for summary disposition)
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 491 Mich. 200 (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (summary disposition and genuine issue of material fact rule)
Wells Fargo Bank v. Country Place Condominium Ass’n, 304 Mich. App. 582 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
Chiropractors Rehabilitation Group, PC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 313 Mich. App. 113 (principles of statutory interpretation; meaning of "or")
Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 449 Mich. 155 (insured bears burden to prove coverage; insurer bears burden to prove exclusions)
Rednour v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co., 468 Mich. 241 (PIP recovery as an occupant of an insured vehicle)
Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co., 442 Mich. 520 (alternative means to recover under §3111 as occupant)
Gentry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 Mich. App. 109 (policy language governs uninsured/uninsured motorist coverage)