Priority dispute between insurers; Liability for payment of no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3163; Goldstein v Progressive Cas Ins Co; Comparing Transp Ins Co v Home Ins Co; Principle that an injured party must turn to his or her own insurer for payment of no-fault benefits, regardless of whether the injured party’s insured vehicle was involved in the accident; MCL 500.3114(1); Titan Ins Co v American Country Ins Co; Requirement that the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle carry insurance on it; MCL 500.3101(1); Ardt v Titan Ins Co; “Owner”; MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i); Subrogation; Auto Club Ins Ass’n v New York Life Ins Co; Principle that subrogation is not available to a volunteer; Reformation

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-insurer summary disposition in its action seeking reimbursement from defendant-insurer. Non-party Layman, who lives in California, was injured in an accident while driving his mother’s car in Michigan. His mother’s insurer (plaintiff) paid benefits after Layman’s insurer (defendant) refused to pay. Plaintiff then sought a declaration that defendant was the insurer highest in priority for payment of benefits. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition and granted plaintiff’s, rejecting defendant’s argument that MCL 500.3163 applied only if the out-of-state insured’s policy applied to the accident at issue. It noted that, “when an insurance company has filed a certification under MCL 500.3163, the insurance company cannot rely on policy exclusions to avoid its obligation to pay its out-of-state insured’s benefits.” On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by finding it liable under MCL 500.3163. “[L]ike the policy in Transp Ins Co, the policy here excluded Layman only because it excluded the vehicle he was driving at the time of the accident. As in Transp Ins Co, [defendant’s] policy excluded acts or actions undertaken by Layman.” As such, and contrary to defendant’s argument, its policy “did not actually exclude Layman.” In addition, “[c]onsidering Layman had no obligation to insure the vehicle, and in the absence of any evidence that [he] sought to take over his mother’s and father’s insurance policy” summary disposition for plaintiff was warranted. Thus, because he was the named insured only on his policy with defendant at the time of the accident, defendant “was first in order of priority, under MCL 500.3114 to reimburse payment of” his benefits. Further, by paying Layman’s benefits, plaintiff “was protecting its own interests and not acting as a volunteer.” It was thus entitled to subrogation. Finally, defendant presented no reason that the court should reform the policy issued by plaintiff. Affirmed.