No-fault insurance; Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Unlawful taking; MCL 500.3113(a); Supreme Court remand; Knowledge; Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co

The court held that plaintiff was barred from recovering PIP benefits because she knowingly took her friend’s vehicle without permission. The case returned on remand from the Supreme Court, which directed the court to address whether plaintiff’s taking of the vehicle was unlawful rather than whether she operated it unlawfully. Plaintiff took her friend’s keys and vehicle without permission during a family emergency, had never driven the vehicle before, lacked a valid driver’s license, and was injured in an accident. On remand, the court held that MCL 500.3113(a) barred recovery because plaintiff testified she “did not ask . . . for permission,” “just got the car because [she] had a family emergency,” and “had no permission to operate [the] vehicle.” The court rejected plaintiff’s reliance on her friendship with the owner and the emergency circumstances because “reasonable belief” is no longer the statutory standard. Relying on Ahmed, the court explained that the Legislature removed the earlier “safe-harbor provision” and replaced it with a scienter requirement under which a claimant is disqualified if she “knew or should have known” the taking was unlawful. Because the undisputed facts showed plaintiff knowingly took the vehicle without permission, the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Reversed and remanded.