Flаintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting Farmers Insurance Exchange’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) regarding plaintiffs action for no-fault personal protection insuranсe (FIE) benefits. We affirm.
While the Cavalier’s title listed Burton and plaintiffs Detroit address, Huling claimed that he regularly garaged the Cavalier at his home in Novi. But he also admitted that “[f]rom time to time,” he would leave the vehicle in Detroit at Burton and plaintiffs home. Burton testified that plaintiff regularly used the Cavalier to drive herself to and from work and to drive Burton to doctor aрpointments and shopping.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was driving the Cavalier by herself. After the accident, she applied for PIP benefits, claiming entitlement under Huling’s State Farm policy. Following Stаte Farm’s denial of benefits, plaintiff filed the present lawsuit, originally naming the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (MACF) and State Farm as defendants. Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange ultimately substituted for the MACF, and the trial сourt dismissed the MACF from the case with prejudice.
State Farm brought a motion for summary disposition on the basis that plaintiff could not recover PIP benefits from it under the policy because the policy only covered the named insured, Huling, and was never intended to benefit plaintiff. Accordingly, State Farm contended that plaintiff was without insurance through which she could claim PIP benefits and that her only recourse was through the MACF or Farmers. In opposing the motion, Farmers argued that Huling was a constructive owner of the vehicle,
Fаrmers later brought its own motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10), arguing that under MCL 500.3113(b), if an owner fails to obtain PIP coverage, he or she cannot recover PIP benefits. Farmers relied on the trial court’s dismissal of Statе Farm, which Farmers argued necessarily meant that Huling was not an owner and, therefore, that the Cavalier had no owner’s policy at the time of the accident. Accordingly, Farmers contended that plaintiff, as the
Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing, in relevant part, that controlling caselaw provided thаt the security-of-insurance requirements of the no-fault act are linked to the vehicle, not the person claiming PIP benefits. Plaintiff, therefore, contended that the Cavalier was insured under Huling’s State Fаrm policy and that it did not matter that Huling was not named on the vehicle’s title or was not otherwise an owner.
On January 18, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on Farmers’ motion. After hearing arguments from both partiеs, the trial court ruled that the no-fault act required at least one of the “owners” to have insurance. It reasoned that because neither plaintiff nor Burton had insurance, plaintiff was barred from seeking benefits under the no-fault act. The trial court granted summary disposition for Farmers.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Johnson v Recca,
The primary goal of the judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Mich Ed Ass’n v Secretary of State {On Rehearing),
The purpose of the Michigan no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., “is to broadly provide coverage for those injured in motor vehicle accidents without regard to fault.” Iqbal v Bristol West Ins Group, 278 Mich App 31, 37;
[a] person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits for accidental bodily injury if at the time of the accident any of the following circumstances existed:
(b) The person was the owner or registrant оf a motor vehicle or motorcycle involved in the accident with respect to which the security required by [MCL 500.3101 or MCL 500.3103] was not in effect.
The issue in the present case is whether MCL 500.3113(b) bars plaintiffs receipt of PIP benefits. Plaintiff relies on this Court’s opinion in Iqbal as standing for the proposition that she can recover as an
In Iqbal, the plaintiff was injured while driving a car that was titled and registered only in his brother’s name. The brother insured the car through Auto Club Insurance Association. The plaintiff livеd with his sister, who had a household no-fault insurance policy issued by Bristol West Insurance Group. The plaintiff sought PIP benefits. Following the trial court’s determination that Bristol had priority to handle the claim, Bristol argued that the plaintiff should be precluded under MCL 500.3113(b) from receiving PIP benefits because the plaintiff was an owner of the car (he had primary possession of it) and did not insure the car himself. The trial court rulеd that whether the plaintiff was an owner under MCL 500.3101(2) was irrelevant because the car indisputably was insured by the brother, who was an owner. Iqbal,
This Court agreed that the plaintiff was not precluded by MCL 500.3113(b) from receiving PIP bеnefits. The Court stated that even while assuming that the plaintiff was an owner,
the phrase “with respect to which the security required by [MCL 500.3101]... was not in effect,” [MCL 500. 3113(b)], when read in proper grammatical context, defines or modifies the preceding reference to the motor vehicle involved in the accident, here the BMW, and not the person standing in the shoes of an owner or registrant. The statutory languаge links the required security or insurance solely to the vehicle. Thus, the question becomes whether the BMW and not plaintiff, had the coverage or security required by MCL 500.3101.... While plaintiff did not obtain this coverage, there is no dispute that the BMW had the coverage, and that is the only requirement under MCL 500.3113(b), making it irrelevant whether it was plaintiff s brother who procured the vehicle’s coverage or plaintiff. [Id. at 39-40 (emphasis altered).]
In the present case, plaintiff cites Iqbal and аrgues that the fact that neither she nor Burton insured the Cavalier does not matter because Huling did. Plaintiff contends that this is so regardless of whether Huling was an owner of the Cavalier. Iqbal should not be read so brоadly as to apply to even nonowners. The Court made it clear that it was addressing the problem of whether the statute required “each and every owner” to maintain insurance on a vehiсle. Id. at 40 n 2. The Court opined that to so hold would preclude an owner who obtained insurance from receiving PIP benefits as long as any other co-owner did not maintain coverage as well. Id.
In further support of our view that Iqbal does not protect owners of vehicles if no owner provides the insurance, we note that Iqbal relied on Jasinski v Nat’l Indemnity Ins Co,
Therefore, while Iqbal held that each and every ownеr need not obtain insurance, it did not allow for owners to avoid the consequences of MCL 500.3113(b) if no owner obtained the required insurance. Thus, under the plain language of MCL 500.3113(b), when none of the owners maintains the requisite coverage, no owner may recover PIP benefits. And because it is undisputed that the only coverage was supplied by Huling, who had been deemed to not be an owner,
Affirmed. Farmers, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.
Notes
See MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(¿) (providing that the term “owner” includes one who has the use of the vehicle for a period of more than 30 days).
The trial court’s award of summary disposition in favor of State Farm conclusively established this fact and has not been challenged by any party on appeal.