Titan Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
296 Mich. App. 75
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Per Curiam affirmance: Titan appeals a trial court summary-disposition grant in favor of State Farm on PIP-priority payment.
- Nature of dispute: which insurer has priority to pay PIP benefits for Kenneth Curler after a June 17, 2006 motorcycle accident.
- Material facts: ownership/registration of the motorcycle at the accident time is disputed; Shreve’s title transfer dates and whether he remained registrant are contested.
- Statutory framework: priority under MCL 500.3114(5) (owner/registrant priority order) and MCL 257.233(9) (transfer timing) at time of accident.
- Prior decision: Titan I identified a factual dispute about Shreve’s transfer date, which could make Shreve the registrant and Titan the proper payer; the Court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.
- Current posture: on remand, Titan contends Shreve remained registrant due to plate retention; trial court adopted State Farm’s view that transfer date controls and that Shreve had no insurable interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shreve remained the registrant/insurable interest holder at the accident. | Shreve retained the plate/registrar status; title date shows transfer after accident. | Shreve assigned title before/around accident; thus no registrant insurable interest. | Shreve remained registrant; Titan liable trial court reversed. |
| How to apply the no-fault priority when title transfer dates conflict with certificate dates. | Documentary evidence shows transfer date earlier or simultaneously; Titan relies on ownership. | Transfer date per statute governs; registrant status is determined by title assignment timing. | Transfer/ownership timing controls; Shreve remained registrant. |
| What effect does leaving the license plate on the motorcycle have on registrant status? | Leaving plate supports registrant status and insurable interest. | Registration may be canceled; plate alone does not end registrant status. | Clevenger control supports that leaving plate can indicate voluntary continuation of registrant status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clevenger v Allstate Ins Co, 443 Mich 646 (1993) (owner/registrant concepts; plate/insurance controls; registrant may remain despite sale when plate remains)
- Allstate Ins Co v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 230 Mich App 434 (1998) (insurable interest and registrant status analyzed; removal of plate/insurance terminates liability; registrant status matters)