Shinn v. Michigan Assigned Claims Facility
314 Mich. App. 765
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kelli Shinn was injured while seated (partly inside) her parked, uninsured car when another vehicle struck her car from behind.
- There is no dispute Shinn was "occupying" the vehicle and was injured; dispute concerns entitlement to no-fault PIP benefits and insurer priority.
- Farmers Insurance Exchange is the assigned-claims insurer; American Country Insurance Company (ACIC) insured the vehicle that struck Shinn’s car.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for both ACIC and Farmers under MCR 2.116(C)(10); Shinn appealed.
- The primary statutory issues involve MCL 500.3101 (when security/insurance is required), MCL 500.3106 (parked-vehicle exceptions), MCL 500.3113(b) (uninsured-owner disqualification), and MCL 500.3114(4) (insurer priority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an occupant of an uninsured, parked vehicle is barred from PIP under MCL 500.3113(b) given current MCL 500.3101 | Shinn: 3101 only requires security while the vehicle is driven on a highway; her car was parked and not required to be insured, so 3113(b) does not bar benefits | Defendants: Uninsured vehicle was "involved" because Shinn was occupying it; 3113(b) therefore bars PIP | Court: Reversed exclusion under 3113(b) — because 3101 requires security only while vehicle is driven/moved on a highway, no security was required while parked (assuming facts as alleged) |
| Whether ACIC (insurer of striking vehicle) is liable under insurer-priority rules (MCL 500.3114) | Shinn: Seeks PIP generally from available insurers | ACIC: Not insurer of owner/registrant or operator of occupied vehicle, so not in statutory priority | Court: Affirmed summary disposition for ACIC — ACIC is not insurer of owner/registrant (3114(4)(a)) nor operator (3114(4)(b)) so not responsible |
| Whether Farmers (assigned-claims insurer) is entitled to summary disposition | Shinn: As claimant assigned to facility, seeks benefits from assigned insurer if appropriate | Farmers: Moved for summary disposition like ACIC | Court: Reversed summary disposition for Farmers — assigned-claims insurer remains insurer of last priority and cannot be dismissed at this stage |
| Effect of appellant’s failure to provide transcript | Defendants: Raised procedural waiver under MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a) | Shinn: Did not provide transcript; court nonetheless considered issue on merits | Court: Not disciplined for transcript omission because issue meritorious and review de novo; defendants may tax costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Heard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 414 Mich. 139 (Sup. Ct.) (parked-vehicle exceptions determine whether uninsured vehicle is "involved" for disqualification)
- Childs v. American Commercial Liability Ins. Co., 177 Mich. App. 589 (Mich. Ct. App.) (occupying a parked vehicle can be use "identifiable with" the vehicle for 3106 purposes)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Mgmt. & Budget, 259 Mich. App. 705 (Mich. Ct. App.) (insurer not listed in statutory priority is not liable under 3114)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Sup. Ct.) (standard of review for summary disposition)