Home-Owners Insurance Company v. Richard Jankowski
331934
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- In Jan 2014 the Jankowskis (Michigan residents who winter in Florida) leased a Lexus GX460 in Florida; it was registered and insured in Florida.
- On May 25, 2014, while in Florida, both were injured in an accident in the GX460 caused by another driver.
- The Jankowskis owned two other Michigan vehicles insured by Home-Owners; they also bought a liability policy from Auto-Owners (which lacked UIM benefits per note).
- Defendants sought PIP benefits from Home-Owners; Home-Owners moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- Trial court held Mr. Jankowski barred from PIP because he was an owner and the GX460 lacked Michigan PIP; it held Mrs. Jankowski not an “owner by use” and thus entitled to PIP.
- Home-Owners appealed; defendants cross‑appealed arguing the vehicle wasn’t required to carry Michigan security because it was never driven in Michigan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mrs. Jankowski was an “owner” (or “owner by use”) under MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i) and thus barred from PIP under MCL 500.3113(b) | Home-Owners: Mrs. Jankowski had the use of the GX460 >30 days (own keys, no permission needed) and thus is an owner | Jankowski: She was not an owner by use, so not barred | Court: Mrs. Jankowski was an owner (having the use >30 days); barred from PIP |
| Whether a vehicle that is never driven in Michigan must nonetheless satisfy Michigan no-fault security requirements to trigger the MCL 500.3113(b) bar | Home-Owners: No-fault statute ties security to the vehicle; lack of Michigan security bars recovery regardless of where vehicle was driven | Jankowski: Motor Vehicle Code limits registration/security obligations to vehicles driven in Michigan, so MCL 3113(b) shouldn’t apply | Court: Rejected defendants’ argument; the no-fault statute unambiguously links the required security to the vehicle and precludes recovery if not in effect |
| Standard of review for summary disposition and statutory interpretation | Home-Owners: de novo review applies | Jankowski: — | Court: Applied de novo review for both summary disposition and statutory interpretation |
| Whether the trial court’s partial grant of summary disposition should be affirmed or reversed | Home-Owners: Trial court erred in finding Mrs. Jankowski not an owner | Jankowski: Cross-appeal contends other statutory limits should prevent the bar | Court: Affirmed in part (as to Mr. Jankowski), reversed in part (as to Mrs. Jankowski being entitled to PIP), remanded for entry of consistent order |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (explains de novo review and summary disposition (MCR 2.116(C)(10)) standards)
- Twichel v. MIC Gen. Ins. Corp., 469 Mich. 524 (clarifies focus on nature of right to use vs. actual use for defining “owner”)
- Ardt v. Titan Ins. Co., 233 Mich. App. 685 (defines “having the use” as use consistent with ownership; multiple owners possible)
- Wilson v. League Gen. Ins. Co., 195 Mich. App. 705 (rejects limiting MCL 3113(b) to vehicles driven in Michigan)
- Iqbal v. Bristol West Ins. Group, 278 Mich. App. 31 (explains statutory linkage of required security to the vehicle)
- Boyle v. Gen. Motors Corp., 468 Mich. 226 (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Hampton v. Waste Mgmt. of Mich., Inc., 236 Mich. App. 598 (all reasonable inferences are resolved in nonmoving party’s favor on summary disposition)