Siemion Huckabay

Insurance/Michigan No-Fault

Michigan No-Fault

Definition of Occupancy Clarified by Michigan Supreme Court--The determination of whether or not a claimant is an occupant of a motor vehicle in certain accident can be crucial for purposes of the Michigan No-Fault Law as it effects personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. In the first place, occupancy for PIP No-Fault Benefits Claims may control which PIP insurer is responsible for payment of PIP benefits pursuant to the priority provisions of the No-Fault Law, MCLA § 500.3114 and 500.3115. Occupancy is also a crucial determination with regards to accidents occurring outside the State of Michigan where PIP coverage may only apply if the claimant was an occupant of a Michigan insured motor vehicle at the time of the accident.

In Rednour v Hastings Mutual, Michigan Supreme Court, Docket Number 119187 (Decided May 30, 2003), the Michigan Supreme Court reiterated an earlier decision reenforcing the basic concept that an occupant of a motor vehicle for purposes of interpreting the Michigan No-Fault Statute is to be defined literally. "A person must be physically inside a vehicle to be an occupant of it under the No-Fault Act." In Rednour, the claimant was fixing a flat tire, had loosened the lug nuts and began to walk toward the rear of the car when he was struck by an oncoming vehicle which pinned him against his disabled vehicle. The court determined that he was not an occupant of that motor vehicle for purposes of the Michigan No-Fault Statute and § 500.3111, and, therefore, was precluded from recovering PIP benefits. The court rejected any attempts to apply a broad definition of occupancy for Michigan No-Fault such as many other states apply for purposes of uninsured motorist benefit claims.

If you have any questions about this case, please e-mail them to chuckabay@siemion-huckabay.com.