Whether driving without a license bars PIP benefits under the “taken unlawfully” provision; MCL 500.3113(a); Monaco v Home-Owners Ins Co; Bradley v Westfield Ins Co; Whether use without an owner’s permission is an unlawful taking barring PIP benefits; Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

The court held that plaintiff’s operation of a friend’s vehicle on the accident date was an unlawful taking for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a). Plaintiff, unlicensed, drove a longtime friend’s car to work and crashed. She later sought PIP benefits through the MACP. The trial court granted the assigned insurer’s motion for summary disposition, finding an unlawful taking. On appeal, the court first clarified, consistent with Monaco and Bradley, that unlawful operation (e.g., lack of license) does not by itself equal “taken unlawfully” under § 3113(a). The record, however, showed a lack of permission on the accident date. The owner testified plaintiff had always asked before but did not ask that day, and plaintiff admitted she “just went on and took it.” Her contrary statements were either inconsistent or, at most, assumptions insufficient under Ahmed, which requires actual authority from the owner rather than a mere belief of entitlement. Because no evidence showed express permission that day, and implied-consent theories no longer apply under amended §3113(a), no genuine factual dispute existed. Plaintiff was disqualified from PIP benefits. Affirmed.