Priority dispute over the payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Whether a shuttle bus was “operated in the business of transporting passengers” under MCL 500.3114(2); Farmers Ins Exch v AAA of MI; The “primary purpose/incidental nature test”; Smith v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; Henry Ford Health Systems (HFHS); Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant-insurer (Farmers) because questions of material fact remain whether the shuttle bus at issue in this case was operated “in the business of transporting passengers.” Plaintiff sought PIP benefits for injuries she sustained while riding as a passenger on defendant-HFHS’s shuttle bus. The shuttle bus was insured by defendant-Zurich. The MACP assigned Farmers as the servicing insurer for plaintiff’s claim. This appeal involved only a priority dispute between Farmers and Zurich. On that issue, the trial court granted summary disposition for Farmers, finding there was no question of material fact that the shuttle bus was operated in the business of transporting passengers. On appeal, the court agreed with Zurich that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for Farmers, but noted that Zurich was also not entitled to summary disposition. “Farmers’s dispositive motion was granted before discovery was complete, and further discovery stands a fair chance of uncovering additional facts that could aid either party opposing the other’s motion for summary disposition.” The court agreed with Farmers to the extent it argued that, at this point in the proceedings, the “facts raise genuine issues of material fact whether HFHS’s shuttle-bus operation is more than an incidental component of its operation of a healthcare system. Yet, particularly in light of Farmers’s concession that it is unknown how many of HFHS’s employees and patients take advantage of HFHS’s shuttle service,” it concluded “that the trial court erred when it found, before the close of discovery, that there is no question of material fact that HFHS’s shuttle-bus service was more than an incidental or small part of its operation of a healthcare system.” And because “questions of material fact exist, Zurich is also not entitled to summary disposition. In short, because questions of material fact remain, a grant of summary disposition in favor of either party at this time would be improper.” Reversed in part and remanded.