Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Unlawful taking under MCL 500.3113(a); Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co; Monaco v Home-Owners Ins Co; Swoope v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest; VHS of MI, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Bradley v Westfield Ins Co; Fraudulent insurance act in an application to the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF); MCL 500.3173a(4); Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the trial court erred in granting defendant-Nationwide partial summary disposition (1) as to an unlawful taking related to the first accident at issue and (2) based on plaintiff committing a fraudulent insurance act under 500.3173a(4) related to a second accident. He was involved in the first accident in 2021 and the second accident in 2022. At the time of the first accident, he was driving his girlfriend’s (M) vehicle without a valid driver’s license. In the second accident, he was a passenger. Nationwide was the assigned insurer under the MACP. As to the first accident, after reviewing several cases concerning MCL 500.3113(a), the court concluded a fact question existed about whether he had M’s permission to drive her vehicle on the date of the accident. While there was no testimony in the record indicating that he did, the record contained his “application for PIP benefits to the MAIPF after the first accident. Importantly, subsection 42.k. of that application inquired: ‘Did you have permission to use the vehicle/motorcycle on the date of the accident?’ and plaintiff checked the box indicating: ‘Yes[.]’ Further, subsection 42.g. asked: ‘Have you ever had to ask permission to use the vehicle/motorcycle?’ and plaintiff indicated: ‘No[.]’ Subsection 42.h. asked: ‘Have you ever been denied permission to use the vehicle/motorcycle?’ and plaintiff indicated: ‘No[.]’ Viewing” this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the court held that there was “a genuine issue of material fact for the jury’s resolution whether” he had M’s permission to use her vehicle on the date of the accident. Thus, summary disposition under “MCR 2.116(C)(10) should not have been granted on the issue whether plaintiff was entitled to recover PIP benefits owed as a result of the first accident notwithstanding MCR 500.3113(a).” An issue of material fact existed whether he “believed his taking was lawful under MCL 500.3113(a).” The court further found that his “leaving section 24 of his application for PIP benefits to the MAIPF for the second accident blank and unanswered does not constitute a ‘written statement’ under the terms of the statute, and, even if it did, there is nonetheless an issue of material fact whether plaintiff’s failure to answer section 24 was a matter of mere oversight and not knowingly false.” Reversed and remanded.