The No-Fault Act; Whether plaintiff was barred by MCL 500.3113(a) from recovering no-fault benefits; Swoope v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest; Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co; Monaco v Home-Owners Ins Co; Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; Rambin v Allstate Ins Co

Concluding Swoope resolved this case, the court held that there was no question of material fact that MCL 500.3113(a) barred plaintiff-Tiburcio Pena-Cruz from receiving no-fault benefits. Thus, the trial court should have granted defendant-State Farm’s summary disposition motion. There was “no question that Tiburcio willingly operated or willingly used” his wife’s (Maria) vehicle (an F-150), “so the first prong from Ahmed is satisfied. As to the second and third prongs, Tiburcio did not have a valid driver’s license, he knew he did not have a valid driver’s [license], and he took Maria’s F-150 anyway without her permission and without taking any steps to ensure that his taking of the F-150 was authorized.” Given his lack of permission, this case was unlike Monaco and “more like Ahmed and Swoope; that is, Tiburcio ‘took’ the F-150 when he drove it. That ‘taking’ was unlawful—and therefore satisfied the second prong from Ahmed—'because operating a vehicle without a valid license is unlawful for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a).’” As to the third prong, the court determined that he “knew or should have known that this taking was unlawful because (1) Tiburcio knew that he did not have a valid license, (2) he should have understood that driving without a valid license was unlawful, (3) he admitted that he did not have Maria’s permission to drive the F-150, and (4) he failed to take any steps to ensure that his taking of the F-150 was authorized. In accordance with Swoope and Ahmed, these facts sufficiently satisfied the third prong from Ahmed.” Based on Spectrum Health, he asserted “only violations of the Michigan Penal Code can constitute an ‘unlawful taking’ under MCL 500.3113(a).” However, the court concluded “Spectrum Health plainly did not” so hold, and further, Ahmed and Swoope both rejected this argument. He also contended that his lack of a “license when he took the F-150 is of no consequence because that only rendered his use of the F-150 illegal.” Among other things, the court found that to the extent he relied “on Spectrum Health, Rambin, and Monaco in support of this argument, those cases are distinguishable.” Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting State Farm’s summary disposition motion.