Rambin v. Allstate Insurance Company, 495 Mich. 316

On Aug 23, 2009 Lejuan Rambin was injured in a motorcycle accident while riding a motorcycle registered to Scott Hertzog; Rambin did not own a vehicle.
Rambin says he borrowed the motorcycle from an Andre Smith who gave him keys and permission the night before; he could not later identify or locate Andre.
Allstate and Titan denied PIP benefits, arguing Rambin had “taken unlawfully” the motorcycle under MCL 500.3113(a) because the bike had been stolen 18 days earlier.
The circuit court granted summary disposition for insurers; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding no unlawful taking as a matter of law from the driver’s perspective.
The Michigan Supreme Court considered whether MCL 750.414 (joyriding) is a strict liability crime for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a) and whether the Court of Appeals improperly resolved disputed facts as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCL 750.414 is a strict‑liability offense (mens rea requirement)?	Laur and Rambin: MCL 750.414 requires at least general intent; Rambin lacked knowledge that bike was stolen.	Allstate: MCL 750.414 imposes liability regardless of taker’s belief; strict liability supports denying PIP.	MCL 750.414 is not strict liability; it requires knowingly taking/using "without authority."
Whether "taken unlawfully" in MCL 500.3113(a) requires the user to know they lacked authority?	Rambin: Yes — the statute must be viewed from driver’s perspective; reasonable belief of authority bars exclusion.	Allstate: No — unlawful taking is satisfied absent owner’s consent; taker’s good faith irrelevant.	Court: "Taken unlawfully" is assessed from driver’s perspective; reasonable belief of authority can defeat exclusion.
Whether Rambin was entitled to summary judgment (no genuine factual dispute)?	Rambin: Facts are undisputed and show he believed he had permission; thus entitled to PIP.	Allstate/Titan: Disputed circumstantial facts support inference Rambin knew bike was stolen; summary judgment for insurers proper.	Court: Reversed Court of Appeals to the extent it entered judgment for Rambin; factual disputes exist and case remanded.

Spectrum Health Hosps. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich., 492 Mich. 503 (interpreting “taken unlawfully” under MCL 500.3113(a) when owner expressly forbids use)
People v. Laur, 128 Mich. App. 453 (MCL 750.414 characterized as a general‑intent offense)
People v. Tombs, 472 Mich. 446 (presumption favoring mens rea; statutory interpretation principles)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (strong presumption against inferring strict criminal liability)