Rambin v. Allstate Insurance
297 Mich. App. 679
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Rambin alleges no-fault benefits after a collision while riding Hertzog's stolen motorcycle.
- Smith gave Rambin keys to the motorcycle, claiming ownership, and said Rambin could use it for a club event.
- Rambin used the motorcycle to attend the event and was injured in a subsequent collision.
- Plaintiff sued Allstate (owner’s vehicle insurer) and Titan (assigned claim), seeking PIP benefits.
- Trial court granted summary disposition under MCL 500.3113(a) (unlawful taking) against Rambin; appellate court reverses.
- Rambin’s license status is noted as suspended in the record, with no Michigan license at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rambin took the motorcycle unlawfully | Rambin argues no unlawful taking occurred since he believed consent existed. | Defendants contend Rambin took unlawfully under MCL 500.3113(a). | No genuine issue; Rambin did not take unlawfully under §3113(a). |
| Whether the saving clause applies if an unlawful taking occurred | If unlawful taking existed, Rambin would argue the saving clause may apply due to reasonable belief of entitlement. | Defendants argue the saving clause may apply only if unlawful taking occurred and Rambin reasonably believed entitled to take/use the vehicle. | Not reached; court found no unlawful taking, so saving clause need not be decided. |
| How Spectrum Health affects the meaning of unlawful taking under §3113(a) | Spectrum Health supports broader interpretation of unlawful taking based on Penal Code violations. | Spectrum Health limits prior interpretations and requires driver-centric view of unlawful taking. | Spectrum Health controls; unlawful taking requires end-user action contrary to the Penal Code; here none occurred. |
| Whether prior Michigan caselaw (pre-Spectrum) should control | plaintiff cites pre-Spectrum cases (e.g., Plumb, Bronson, Butterworth, Mester) to support unlawful taking. | Defendants rely on older lines of cases; Spectrum Health overruled or narrowed them. | Spectrum Health governs; pre-Spectrum analyses were superseded in material respect. |
| Remand posture and scope of review | Reversing summary disposition is appropriate given no unlawful taking. | Maintaining disposition would require further factual development. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with Spectrum Health and this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spectrum Health Hosp v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503 (Mich. 2012) (overruled Bronson/Priesman framework; clarifies unlawful taking from driver’s perspective)
- Plumb v Amerisure Ins Co, 282 Mich App 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (unlawful taking analysis; saving clause development)
- Bronson Methodist Hosp v Forshee, 198 Mich App 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (chain of permissive use; approval later curtailed by Spectrum Health)
- Butterworth Hosp v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 225 Mich App 244 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (joyriding family member exception; pre-Spectrum framework)
- Mester v State Farm Mut Ins Co, 235 Mich App 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (limits breadth of joyriding exception to family members)
- Landon v Titan Ins Co, 251 Mich App 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (bailee/consent-based approach; inconsistent with later spectrum guidance)
- Allen v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 268 Mich App 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (treatment of family member joyriding; pre-Spectrum stance)
- Roberts v Titan Ins Co (On Reconsideration), 282 Mich App 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (pre-Spectrum conflict on joyriding exception)