Whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” at the time of the accident & whether plaintiff knew or should have known that it was “taken unlawfully”; MCL 500.3113(a); Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; Rambin v Allstate Ins; Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co; Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) benefits; No-Fault Act (NFA)

The court held that because “the Court of Appeals analyzed MCL 500.3113(a) by conducting the wrong inquiry,” reversal was required. And “because the Court of Appeals inadequately considered defendant’s alternative ground for summary disposition under MCL 500.3113(a)—that plaintiff’s actions constituted an unlawful taking of the motor vehicle—” the court remanded for it to address this question. The issue was whether, at the time of the motor vehicle accident in which she was injured, plaintiff “was willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and [she] knew or should have known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully.” If so, then she is barred from recovering PIP benefits under the NFA. “Taken together, Spectrum Health and Rambin both require consideration of the circumstances at the time the vehicle was taken to determine whether the taking itself was unlawful.” The court also explained that the Court of Appeals’ error stemmed “in part” from “erroneously extending dicta” from Ahmed, and it stated, to “the extent that Ahmed concluded otherwise, it was wrongly decided.” Consistent with that point, the court held that by “holding that plaintiff’s unlawful operation of the motor vehicle barred her recovery of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a), the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the statute. Whether a claimant is barred from recovery by MCL 500.3113(a) turns on whether the vehicle was taken—rather than operated or used—unlawfully and whether the claimant knew or should have known that it had been taken unlawfully. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred, and” the court reversed. The Court of Appeals failed to address the alternative ground for summary disposition raised by defendant regarding how plaintiff’s taking of the vehicle was unlawful. Thus, the court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.