The No-Fault Act; (NFA); Insurer liability for PIP benefits; Priority; MCL 500.3114(4); Allstate Ins Co v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; MCL 500.3177(1); Waiver by failing to sufficiently raise an argument; Reimbursement; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

Concluding that the trial court did not err when it found defendant was not the insurer of the vehicle, the court affirmed. Nonparty-Krinsky’s vehicle, which was insured by defendant, was stolen. He later signed over the title to defendant in exchange for payment for coverage of the vehicle. Defendant did not register the title with the state. Six days after defendant took title to the vehicle, it was involved in a car accident in which claimants were injured. Plaintiff paid claimants in accordance with the NFA, as an assigned insurer by the MACP, and sought reimbursement from defendant for PIP benefits paid, claiming that it was a higher priority insurer under MCL 500.3114(4)(a). The case was “similar to Allstate, because Krinsky showed he did not intend to remain the registrant of the vehicle after it was stolen. Because the vehicle was stolen, Krinsky had no opportunity to take actions such as removing the license plate, but by accepting payment for the vehicle and signing over title to defendant, he showed his intent to no longer have an ‘insurable interest’ in the vehicle, and ‘did nothing to intimate that he was voluntarily remaining the registrant of the car.’” Plaintiff cited MCL 257.234(3). Following its logic, “because only six days had passed between Krinsky signing over title and the accident, the vehicle was not considered ‘without registration’ under the statute, and therefore Krinsky must still be considered the registrant of the vehicle.” The court addressed a similar argument in Allstate. As in that case, “the applicable provisions of the vehicle code do not compel a conclusion that the previous owner of the vehicle—here, Krinsky—was still the registrant. The provision cited by plaintiff provides only a situation in which the Secretary of State will consider a vehicle to be ‘without registration.’” Thus, its claim that “Krinsky should have still been considered the registrant of the vehicle at the time of the accident on the basis of the vehicle code” failed. Plaintiff’s second theory was that “because defendant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, defendant should have covered the PIP claims.” The trial court found that “even if defendant owned the vehicle, priority is based on the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle, and there was no evidence in the record that defendant issued a policy on the vehicle after” it obtained the title. On appeal, plaintiff did not contend otherwise—it did “not point to any policy that defendant issued on the vehicle after it obtained ownership such that it would be a higher priority insurer.”