The No-Fault Act (NFA); Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Ineligibility due to constructive ownership of the uninsured vehicle involved in the accident; MCL 500.3113(b); “Owner” (MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i)); Abdulla v Progressive SE Ins Co; “Having the use” of the vehicle; Ardt v Titan Ins Co; Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp; Healthcare providers' recovery; MCL 500.3112; Mota-Peguero v Falls Lake Nat’l Ins Co

The court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the injured individual (other party-Simpson) was an “owner” of the uninsured vehicle involved in the accident and thus, ineligible to recover PIP benefits for his injuries. It also found no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiffs-healthcare providers were “not entitled to recover PIP benefits for the treatment” they provided him. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurer. The vehicle was purchased by his live-in girlfriend (B) shortly before the accident. Apart from “pointing to Simpson’s use of the vehicle for less than 30 days and the absence of a written agreement, plaintiffs” failed to present any proofs below supporting their position that he “was not an ‘owner’ within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i). Defendant’s offered proofs, meanwhile, uniformly demonstrated that Simpson had a ‘right to use the vehicle’ that was ‘possessory or proprietary in a manner that comports with ownership.’” Even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, those proofs showed “that, pursuant to an arrangement between Simpson and [B], Simpson had a ‘regular pattern of unsupervised usage’ of the vehicle such that he was its owner under” that statutory provision. This “made him ineligible under MCL 500.3113(b) to receive PIP benefits for his injuries resulting from the” accident. The court also concluded that plaintiffs could not maintain a direct claim under MCL 500.3112 here. The case on which they relied, Mota-Peguero, concerned post-accident rescission of a policy. The vehicle here was uninsured and Simpson had no auto insurance policy at the time of the accident. “Given that there was no insurance policy at issue in this case,” the court failed to see how Mota-Peguero would control plaintiffs’ entitlement to PIP benefits. Because Simpson’s injuries were not covered under the NFA, plaintiffs were not “a provider that ‘render[ed] treatment to an injured person for an accidental bodily injury covered by’” PIP.