Highest-priority no-fault insurer for purposes of plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits under Michigan’s No-Fault Act (the Act) (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3114(3); Whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the Act; Parham v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co.; The economic-reality test; Harmonizing Adanalic v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lake States Ins. Co., & Besic v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest; Consideration of unpublished opinions; Cox v. Hartman; Sappington v. Shoemake (Unpub.); Preventing absurd results; Rafferty v. Markovitz

Concluding that Adanalic, Celina, and Besic can be harmonized, the court held that the trial court erred by finding that defendant-Auto Club was the highest-priority no-fault insurer rather than defendant-Cherokee pursuant to MCL 500.3114(3). Thus, it reversed the order granting summary disposition in favor of Cherokee and remanded. Plaintiff suffered injuries when he slipped and fell while trying to put antifreeze in his truck. At the time, he was performing truck-driving services under an independent-contractor agreement with a nonparty (Universal). “Plaintiff testified that he held legal title to the truck, and at the time of the accident, Universal was leasing the truck from him. Plaintiff maintained personal automobile insurance through Auto Club, and Universal maintained business automobile insurance through Cherokee.” As to the issue of the highest-priority no-fault insurer, the court concluded that as it held in Sappington, there was “no need to determine which of Celina, Besic, and Adanalic ‘controls’ over the others, because” all of them can be harmonized. “A person cannot be an employee and independent contractor of the same entity at the same time. However, being an independent contractor of one entity does not preclude a person from simultaneously being an employee of another entity, which can include one’s self. On these facts,” the court held that plaintiff was not an employee of Universal, but “was an employee of himself. Because plaintiff also ‘owned’ the vehicle, MCL 500.3114(3) applies. Because Cherokee insured the vehicle, it is the insurer of highest priority.”