Whether the trial court properly interpreted MCL 500.3116(2) when it decided that the statute precluded plaintiff’s subrogation claim; Citizens Ins Co v Pezzani & Reid Equip Co, Inc (On Remand); Special conflict panel

Concluding that the case was consistent with Pezzani, the court affirmed the trial court’s award of summary disposition to defendant-Family Tire. It held that plaintiff-Frankenmuth Insurance ’s claim was barred by MCL 500.3116(2), but noted that if “we were not bound by Pezzani, we would reach the opposite result because we believe Pezzani was wrongly decided, so we call for the convening of a special panel in accordance with MCR 7.215(J)(3) to consider whether Pezzani was correct in affording preclusive effect to MCL 500.3116(2) to bar a claim against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.” Plaintiffs-the Calls “suffered injuries when their vehicle came in contact with a tire that had fallen off a vehicle going in the opposite direction.” The Calls received hundreds of thousands of dollars in PIP benefits from Frankenmuth, which sought recovery from Family Tire, “asserting that Family Tire improperly secured a tire while rotating the tires on the vehicle.” The issue on appeal was “whether the trial court properly interpreted MCL 500.3116(2) when it decided that that statute precluded Frankenmuth’s subrogation claim against Family Tire.” Frankenmuth argued “that the statute does not bar its claim, so the trial court erred when it dismissed that claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8).” In 1993, the court “issued a published opinion that discussed MCL 500.3116[,] Pezzani.” The court noted that in “the 32 years since Pezzani was issued, it has rarely been cited as authority in the opinions of this Court, although it was discussed in two unpublished opinions.” It concluded that relying on the holding in Pezzani it was required to affirm.