Insurance claims arising from injuries in an out-of-state trucking accident; The No-Fault Act (NFA); PIP benefits; MCL 500.3111; Business-use exclusion as to uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits

The court held that coverage was not available under Michigan’s NFA or the insurance policies at issue and the trial court erred in denying defendants-insurers’ (Amerisure and Great American) summary disposition motions. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s orders, and remanded for entry of orders dismissing the claims against them. Plaintiff-Ameen Al-Gahmi “was injured in an out-of-state trucking accident while a passenger in a truck he owned but had leased to another company” (nonparty-Transport Systems). He filed suit against the driver and “the insurance companies that provided the truck’s bobtail policy and the lessee’s commercial policy.” Amerisure argued that “Ameen was barred from receiving PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111.” Great American contended the trial court erred in “denying its motion because Ameen was barred from receiving PIP or UM/UIM benefits under its policy’s business-use exclusion.” The court noted in Docket No. 361932 that “Transport Systems’ Amerisure policy did not list the Volvo truck as a covered auto or Ameen as a named insured. Ameen contended that he was entitled to coverage anyway as the policy included numerous PIP endorsements which prevailed over any conflicting policy provisions, because Transport Systems constructively owned the Volvo, and because the policy covered leased vehicles.” Thus, he asserted “Amerisure was the top priority insurer under MCL 500.3114.” The court noted the “accident occurred in Arkansas, necessarily implicating MCL 500.3111.” It was undisputed “Ameen was not a named insured or a spouse or resident relative of a named insured on Amerisure’s policy, nor was the Volvo listed in the policy. As such, Ameen was ineligible for PIP benefits under Amerisure’s policy. Whether Transport Systems constructively owned the Volvo is irrelevant as it was not identified as a covered vehicle.” In Docket No. 361934, the court held that “coverage also was not available under the Great American bobtail policy.” It was undisputed “Ameen was using the Volvo in the business of a lessee and to transport cargo at the time of the accident. Ameen has never argued in avoidance of this exclusion.” Instead, he contended the business-use exclusion was unenforceable on the basis it was contrary to the purpose of the NFA. The court found that “it was Ameen’s responsibility, not Great American’s, to ensure that he was properly covered for all situations, including those not covered by Great American’s bobtail policy. Ameen failed to do so, and cannot now contend that Great American’s policy exclusion is against public policy or the purpose of the” NFA.