Infinity Physical Therapy LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins Co
364890
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2024Background
- Elijah Smith retained possession and sole control, including exclusive keys, of a Chevrolet Impala titled to Mildred Wainwright for approximately nine months after Wainwright's death.
- Smith drove the vehicle only a few times but was negotiating to purchase it before Wainwright died and made no move to return the car to her estate or family.
- At the time of a car accident in November 2020, Smith did not have insurance on the Impala and did not reside with anyone carrying no-fault insurance.
- Smith assigned his right to collect benefits to several medical providers, who then sought recovery from Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company after being denied benefits.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Nationwide, finding Smith was a constructive owner of the vehicle who failed to insure it, thus barring both him and his assignees from no-fault benefits.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Smith a constructive owner under MI law? | Smith was only a permissive user and not an owner | Smith had exclusive possession and control; thus, owner | Smith was a constructive owner as a matter of law |
| Duty to insure vehicle | No duty since Smith was not titled/registered owner | Constructive owner status imposed the duty to insure | As constructive owner, Smith had duty to insure the Impala |
| Eligibility for no-fault benefits | Providers entitled as assignees of Smith | Bar on Smith's recovery extends to assignees | Providers stand in Smith's shoes and are also barred |
| Genuine issue of material fact | Sufficient dispute over ownership for trial | No dispute: Smith had exclusive control and use | No genuine factual dispute; summary disposition proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ardt v. Titan Ins. Co., 233 Mich. App. 685 (constructive ownership includes proprietary or possessory use for more than 30 days)
- Chop v. Zielinski, 244 Mich. App. 677 (exclusive use for extended period makes user a constructive owner)
- Kessel v. Rahn, 244 Mich. App. 353 (proprietary or possessory use for over 30 days triggers insurance responsibilities)
- Twichel v. MIC Gen. Ins. Corp., 469 Mich. 527 (constructive ownership based on right to use, not just actual use)
- Detroit Med Ctr v. Titan Ins. Co., 284 Mich. App. 490 (need for permission and lack of regular use negates constructive ownership)