167532
Mich.Jul 7, 2026Background
- Mohammed Abdulla was injured in Missouri while driving a tractor-trailer and sought Michigan no-fault PIP benefits from several insurers, later adding the MAIPF. 1
- The tractor was titled to Tornado Trucking, LLC, a company solely owned by Abdulla, and the lease arrangement gave Tornado Trucking control over the tractor's operation and maintenance. 2
- Great American insured Tornado Trucking's tractor with a bobtail policy that excluded PIP while the tractor was used in a lessee's business or to transport cargo. 3
- Progressive insured Land Trucking's vehicles but did not cover the tractor or provide PIP, and Auto Club's policy for Abdulla's father did not name Abdulla or the tractor. 4
- The trial court denied Auto Club's summary-disposition motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record did not show Abdulla was an owner or registrant; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. 5
- The Supreme Court held Abdulla was an owner under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) because he had exclusive, unsupervised use of the tractor for more than 30 days and had not maintained required security. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Abdulla an 'owner' under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i)? 7 | Abdulla lacked personal ownership because Tornado Trucking held title. | Abdulla had exclusive use and control for over 30 days. | Yes; his right to use the tractor made him an owner. 8 |
| Does title in Tornado Trucking's name prevent Abdulla from being an owner? 9 | LLC ownership makes Tornado, not Abdulla, the owner. | The statute looks to use and control, not formal title. | No; LLC form does not override the no-fault definition. 10 |
| Does MCL 500.3113(b) bar Abdulla's PIP claim? 11 | He remained eligible for PIP through priority provisions. | An uninsured owner is excluded from PIP benefits. | Yes; Abdulla is barred because he lacked required security. 12 |
| Should the court focus on actual business use or right to use? 13 | He only used the tractor for Tornado's business. | Ownership turns on the scope of the right to use. | Focus is on the right to use, not actual business use. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524 (Mich. 2004) (ownership turns on the nature of the person's right to use the vehicle 15)
- Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) ('having the use' means proprietary or possessory use, not merely incidental use 16)
- Chop v Zielinski, 244 Mich App 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) ('or otherwise' extends owner status beyond leases and rentals 17)
- El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152 (Mich. 2019) (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10) 18)
- Hannay v Dep't of Transp, 497 Mich 45 (Mich. 2014) (de novo review of statutory interpretation 19)
- Badeen v PAR, Inc, 496 Mich 75 (Mich. 2014) (clear statutory language is enforced as written 20)
- Dye v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co, 504 Mich 167 (Mich. 2019) (security requirement can be satisfied by insurance maintained by any person, but uninsured owners remain excluded 21)