*1 v BUTTERWORTH HOSPITAL FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY February 5, 1997, Rapids.
Docket No. 188374. Submitted
at Grand
Decided
August 29, 1997, at
9:15
A.M.
Hospital brought
Butterworth
an
in
action
the Montcalm Circuit Court
against Floyd Wright, III,
Company,
C.
and Farm Bureau Insurance
payment
seeking
inju-
for medical services
rendered
ries he sustained while
in his mother’s uninsured automo-
Bureau,
designated by
Assigned
bile. Farm
which had been
Facility
Wright’s
personal pro-
Claims
to handle
no-fault claim for
act,
MCL 500.3101 et
tection insurance benefits
under
no-fault
seq.;
seq.,
summary disposition, arguing
MSA 24.13101 et
moved for
prohibits Wright
recovering
of the no-fault act
unlawfully
insurance benefits because he had
injuries.
court,
taken the
automobile
which he sustained his
The
Nichоls, X, granted summary disposition
James K.
for Farm
Hospital appealed.
Bureau. Butterworth
Appeals
held:
The Court of
opinion
1. As decided in the lead
in Priesman v Meridian Mut
(1992),
justices
signed
requires limited to fam- §to be that the person 3113(a) precludes cоverage ily members; where the it. does so with the intent to steal Joyriding — — — Fam- Personal Protection Insurance Insurance No-Fault ily Members. joyride automobile for a with A who takes a member’s bodily injury in an accident involv- no intent to steal it and sustains unlawfully ing take the automobile as con- the automobile does nоt persons templated provision that excludes in the of the no-fault act recovery pro- personal from take motor vehicles bodily injury (MCL accidental tection insurance benefits for 24.13113[a]). 500.3113[a];MSA Cummiskey, P.L.C. Miller, Johnson, (by Snell & plaintiff. R. for the Stephen Ryan), S. Damon, & PC. Jonathan Dilley, Dewey (by Damon), the defendant. for and J. M. Batz Bandstra, P.J., Hoekstra
Before: JJ. er*, Hospital P.J. Plaintiff Butterworth
Bandstra, summary an appeals right granting as of from order Farm Bureau Insur- in favor of defendant disposition We reverse. Company. ance of the no- involving The facts of this case are 24.13113(a), 500.3113(a); act, fault III, Floyd Wright, 16, 1993, On undisputed. August * Appeals by assignment. sitting judge, on the Court of Circuit injured while driving his mother’s automobile permission. without her At the time of the accident, in a approximately lived mobile home situated parents’ five hundred feet from his mobile home. Sev- years eral accident, injured before this an injury accident in which he sustained head led to a seizure disorder. On the basis of this disorder, parents his him permission refused to drive either of their automobiles. Nevertheless, Wright that, claimed from time, time to his mother him gave permission to drive two miles to and from the stipu- local store. It is lated purposes of this appeal, however, that, on day in question, Wright telephoned his mother at work, permission asked her to use her car, and she rеfused. Nevertheless, Wright keys took the car parents’ his mobile home, drove the car, and was involved an accident injuries which he sustained that were treated at Butterworth Hospital.
The car had been in disrepair, and Wright’s parents *3 had allowed the insurance on the car lapse. Before incident, this repaired; vehicle was however, insuranсe was not reinstated. Pursuant to MCL 24.13172, MSA the Assigned Facility Claims named Farm Bureau Insurance Company to handle any no-fault claims from arising the accident. But- terworth Hospital then brought unpaid suit for medi- cal bills for injuries treatment to Wright for arising out the accident. parties
Both summary moved for disposition. Farm Bureau argued that MCL 500.3113(a); 24.13113(a), which excludes for an individ- ual “unlawfully” precluded takes a vehicle, cov- erage because Wright took unlawfully. Butterworth argued inapplicable 3113(a) Hosp Bureau v Farm Wright but car, to steal had no intent because joyride Therefore, Butterworth in it. “unlawfully” the car argued take did not Mut v Meridian in Priesman defined term is as that (1992). Farm 490 NW2d responded not constitute did that Priesman Bureau majority precedential
opinion it has no and, therefore, pres- that the contended Bureau further value. Farm distinguishable The trial Priesman. is ent case summary disposition granted of Farm in favor court distinguished find- trial court Bureau. The coverage, ing was not entitled unlawfully using but vehicle, he was because date of the acci- not, on the he was rather, because This insured’s household. of the dent, a member argu- parties appeal the same maintain The followed. appeal. ments on provides: act of the no-fault
Section paid person be not entitled to A is bodily injury if at the time for accidental insurance benefits any following existed: circumstances of the of the accident motorcycle person using a motor vehicle or (a) The unlawfully, unless the had taken which he or she reasonably to take he or she was еntitled believed that 24.13113(a) 500.3113(a); MSA the vehicle. use [MCL (emphasis added).] unlawfully” phrase in the not defined is “taken
The
interpreted in Pries-
but has been
act itself
no-fault
nearly
identical issue
that addressed
man, a case
Supreme
very
consid-
Our
Court
facts.1
under
similar
however,
previ-
before;
it has
has addressed
This Court
unlаwfully” language.
In Bronson Methodist
ously
the “taken
defined
*4
(1993),
found
Forshee,
App 617,
this Court
permission. [Id.] Accordingly, opinion lead in found a “family member” joyriding exception to the no-fault act. Id. at 70 (Griffin, J., dissenting).
While recognizing that
the lead opinion in Pries-
man
by
was signed
justices
three
and, therefore,
is not binding upon this Court, Cox v Dearborn
Heights,
our
concurring in that result.
Justice
Boyle
member,
precedential
Although
supra
the
at 69.
problem
somewhat
therefore,
is,
of Priesman
value
compelled
therefore con
it. We
to follow
atic, we feel
3113(a),
for an
§
which excludes
clude
unlawfully
vehicle, does not
a
takes
who
individual
taking
apply
the vehicle
the
cases where
to
doing
family
unlawfully
the
so without
member
ais
purp
joyriding
doing so for
instead,
but,
intent to steal
Wright
present
was a
case, because
In the
oses.2
attempting
joyriding
family
to
rather than
member
“unlawfully”
car for
take the
not
he did
car,
the
steal
thus
purposes
act and is
the no-fault
of
of
provision.
coverage under that
excluded
unlawfully
Wright
took
Bureau maintains
Farm
distinguish
case
this
reasons that
for three
only
Wright
took the car
First,
from Priesman.
against
approval
but took it
owner,
the
the
of
without
express prohibition
and violated
owner
of the
the
away
(unlawfully
a
28.645
750.413; MCL
(use
vehicle)
of a
MSA28.646
or
motor
authority
intent to
but without
vehicle
motor
steal).
took it
fact that
However, the
prohibition
express
raise
does not
of the owner
the
joyriding
borrowing,
in, the
or
of
from that
his intent
2
exception
opinion,
colleague’s
Notwithstanding
concurring
this
our
by
joyriders
a
car that is owned
who taire a
extended to
should not be
nonfamily
stated
Justicе
stranger
For the reasons
member.
or other
exception
any joyriding
dissent,
to be in
seems
in his Priesman
Griffin
above,
explained
the
language
As
derogation
of the statutes.
clear
of the
exception
joyriding
recognized
in the
Supreme
a
justices
Court
of the
special
attendant
consideratiоns
because of
case
did so
by family
family
Those considera-
a
member.
vehicle
use of
beyond
exception
expansion
warrant
of
do not
tions
context.
App
250
244
Mich
Opinion
of
Court
car
the car with the
steal.
intent
Even
assuming
actions constituted
violation
of one or
of
statutes,
both
these criminal
that alone
would not be sufficient to establish the intent to steal
necessary
invoke
the exclusion of
because neither of
crimes requires proof
these
People Laur,
v
intent
App
to steal.
453;
(1983); People Davis,
NW2d
v
Second, Farm Bureau asserts that
took
vehicle
because he took it knowing that he
physically
incapable
operating
vehicle
*6
safely and was not
entitled
be a licensed driver.
Farm
argues
Wright
Bureau
that
was therefore driving
recklessly in violation of MCL 257.626; MSA 9.2326 or
driving feloniously under MCL 752.191; MSA 28.661.
Further, Farm Bureau
that
argues
of
his
vehicle
mother’s
was unlawful because he knew
that
it was uninsured. Farm
arguеs
Bureau
that
Wright violated MCL 500.3102(2); MSA 24.13102(2),
which
it a
makes
misdemeanor
operate
a motor
public
vehicle on a
highway knowing that it is unin-
sured.
Each
these arguments
questions
raises
regarding the use of the vehicle by
Wright,
the
taking. However, it is the unlawful nature of the tak-
ing, not the unlawful nature of
use,
the
that
is the
basis of the exclusion under
Brоnson Meth-
3113(a).
odist
v Forshee,
617,
198 Mich App
627; 499
NW2d 423 (1993); State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co
v Hawkeye-Security
App 675,
Third, Farm Bureau contends that is dis- tinguishable because is an Wright adult and lived apart parents from his at the time of the accident. As Hosp v Farm Bureau distinguished Priesman above, the trial court
noted apart his was domiciled thаt on the basis pre parents was therefore found that and receiving However, the no-fault benefits. cluded from upon holding the that fact Priesman was based in was a minor domiciled Priesman driver in the upon parents; fact the rather, his it based with member who driver supra joyride. at 68. The fact Priesman, son was the insured’s that the driver Priesman parents was relevant home with his who lived at pay determining would which no-fault insurer supra also, See, n 12. 65, at benefits. See provides 24.13114,which policy applies to acci insurance pol injury bodily named in the dental spouse, icy, person’s and a relative either dom Therefore, fac those in the same household.3 iciled legal are distinctions tual differences significance.
Additionally, argues most Farm Bureau important Priesman and the distinction between present the vehicle was case is that Priesman brought the vehi insured and the claim was present case the vehicle insurer, cle’s whereas in the brought through was Assigned and the claim was uninsured *7 Facility. the However, the fact that Claims 3 24.13172, case, rather than note MCL MSA In this we that 3114, applicable determining pay in the benefits. Subsection is will § provides payment personal protection 3172(1) benefits of insurance for protection personal through assigned plan where no insurance an claims injury. applicable is to the 4 (that Wright points was that this distinction Farm Bureau also out Wright’s parents significant if driving vehicle) because is to an uninsured obtaining 3113(a), precluded then from benefits under is not MICH
Concurrence J. Hoekstra, joyrider appear in Priesman insurеd did not to any holding. Rather, on have effect the Court’s it seems that the Court mentioned that fact appeared Legislature because it that person injured while a vehicle that sto- len would not be entitled to regardless insurance benefits of whether the was insured. Id. at 67-68.
We reverse. J.,
J. M. Batzer, concurred. (concurring). agree majority J. I with the Hoekstra, is entitled to no-fault benefits denying decision of the trial court benefits be must separately reversed. I write I because do believe Wright’s relationship to the of car owners any bearing right involved has on his to receive the Essentially, my benefits at issue. of the basis disa- greement mаjority with the lies its desire to limit coverage people only people to those related to of the owners the cars I taken. find no exception applica- basis to limit the to the otherwise statutory onlyfamily ble denial of mem- joyride; rather, bers who I would conclude that judgment Bureau, ultimately will enter Farm but will be the responsibility Wright’s parents pro- of under of the act. This section paying injury vides that a no-fault insurer benefits as a of result an occupant may of an uninsured motor vehicle recover such from benefits indemnify the owner of that vehicle and that failure of owner entry judgment no-fault carrier results of indemnification driving privileges. but 500.3177(1); 24.13177(1). also loss of points required Farm Bureau out that mother was not to insure long operated highway her vehicle as as it was not on the and did all that reasonably expected keep being could her be vehicle driven by expressly prohibiting might policy argument its use. Whilе this be a affirming decision, ignore favor of the trial court’s this Court cannot Priesman. *8 v Farm Bureau by Hoekstra, J. Concurrence deny 3113(a)1 does not of the no-fault act merely joyriding. anyone I Therefore, would is only precludes coverage where
hold that
person taking
so with
does
provision was not
and that the
to steal
intent
injured
coverage for a
exclude
intended to
joyriding in an automobile.
while
majority,
nothing
I
Priesman v
find
Unlike the
60;