896 N.W.2d 32
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- 15-year-old Alison Monaco crashed while driving a car owned by her mother; she had a level-1 permit requiring accompaniment by a licensed adult but was driving unaccompanied.
- The vehicle was insured by Home-Owners Insurance Company (HOIC); Alison received extensive treatment from intervening medical providers.
- Plaintiff (Laura Monaco, as personal representative) first told HOIC an adjuster that Alison did not have permission to drive; HOIC denied PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a).
- Plaintiff later testified (and produced corroborating deposition evidence) that Alison did have permission to take and drive the car; HOIC argued those later statements were self-serving and that the taking was unlawful as a matter of law because Alison’s driving violated the Vehicle Code.
- Trial court denied HOIC’s summary-disposition and directed-verdict motions; jury found HOIC failed to prove Alison took the car without permission and awarded PIP per prior stipulation; HOIC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 500.3113(a) bars PIP where driver had owner’s permission to take the car but operated it unlawfully (violated permit rules) | Permission to take the vehicle makes the taking lawful; unlawful operation/use is irrelevant to “taken unlawfully.” | Because permitting Alison to drive violated the Vehicle Code, there was no lawful authorization and the taking was unlawful as a matter of law, barring PIP. | Court held “taken unlawfully” refers to unlawful taking (lack of owner authority), not unlawful operation/use; PIP available when owner authorized taking even if operation violated law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (discusses standard for reviewing directed verdict and summary disposition)
- Krohn v Home-Owners Ins Co, 490 Mich. 145 (no-fault act and statutory interpretation principles)
- Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303 (statutory construction rules)
- Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich. 503 (defines “taken unlawfully” as lacking owner authority; distinguishes taking from use)
- Rambin v Allstate Ins Co, 495 Mich. 316 (unlawful use is not relevant to MCL 500.3113 unlawful-taking language)
- Amerisure Ins Co v Plumb, 282 Mich. App. 417 (distinguishes "take" from "use")
- Henry Ford Health Sys v Esurance Ins Co, 288 Mich. App. 593 (focuses first on lawfulness of taking under MCL 500.3113)
- Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich. 153 (test for whether reasonable minds could differ on material facts)