Section 500.3114 - Persons entitled to personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits; order of priority for claim of motor vehicle occupant or motorcycle operator or passenger; assigned claims plan; 2 or more insurers in same order of priority; partial recoupment; definitions

6 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. COA – Because Plaintiff’s uninsured vehicle was not being operated at time of accident, insurer for State assigned claims plan must pay for PIP benefits as insurer of last priority

    Warner Norcross & Judd LLPJason ByrneMarch 31, 2016

    In Shinn v. State of Michigan Secretary of State Assigned Claims Facility, No. 324227, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that security on plaintiff’s vehicle was not required at the time of an accident, under MCL 500.3101(1), because the vehicle had just been repaired and was parked at the time of the accident. In light of this finding, the Court further held that because there was no operator of plaintiff’s vehicle, the insurer of the vehicle that struck plaintiff’s vehicle was not the insurer under MCL 500.3114(4)(b); and therefore, the insurer of the State assigned claims plan was the insurer of last priority. Plaintiff Kelli Shinn was sitting in the passenger seat of her vehicle, partially inside and outside of the vehicle, when Robert Daniels drove into the rear of her vehicle.

  2. Motorcyclist Insurance in Michigan Under New No-Fault Law

    Michigan Auto LawJuly 16, 2019

    Hewitt’s advice for motorcyclists was to purchase motorcycle insurance policies with as much medical coverage as they can because of the uncertainty about what other drivers may be carrying.Limits on Motorcycle Insurance in MichiganThe new No-Fault lawhas not changedthe sources of No-Fault benefits for motorcyclists (whether they are operators or riders) who are injured in a motorcycle accident with a motor vehicle:Motorcyclists will continue to first seek No-Fault benefits from the “insurer” of the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and, then, the “insurer” of the vehicle’s operator. (MCL 500.3114(5)(a) and (b))After that, injured motorcyclists will continue to turn to the “motor vehicle insurer of the operator of the motorcycle involved in the accident” and, then, the “motor vehicle insurer” of the motorcycle’s owner or registrant. (MCL 500.

  3. How the Michigan No-Fault Law Applies to Pedestrian Car Accidents?”

    Michigan Auto LawSteven GurstenJuly 23, 2019

    That means how the new auto No-Fault law affects pedestrians impacts all of us, whether we’re walking on a sidewalk or crossing a street.In this blog, I will discuss the No-Fault rights of pedestrians, including their No-Fault rights to medical and wage loss, as well as their legal rights to sue an at-fault, negligent driver if they are injured in a car accident for pain and suffering compensation.First stop for No-Fault benefits after a pedestrian car accidentA pedestrian who has been hit by a car in Michigan must follow an “order of priority” that determines the order of who will pay his or her No-Fault PIP benefits.Here is the No-Fault order of priorities for pedestrians:The pedestrian’s own No-Fault auto insurance policy for his or her own personal motor vehicle in which he or she is the named insured. (MCL 500.3114(1); 500.3115)The No-Fault auto insurance policy that the pedestrian’s spouse has on his or her motor vehicle.

  4. COA rules insurer of commercial transportation vehicle may be liable for claims arising from injuries sustained in accident involving an uninsured vehicle sharing common ownership

    Warner Norcross & Judd LLPJason ByrneSeptember 21, 2015

    In the consolidated appeal of Titan Insurance Company v American Country Insurance Company, No. 319342, and Bronson Methodist Hospital v Titan Insurance Company, No. 321598, the Court of Appeals held that under MCL 500.3114 of Michigan’s No-Fault Act, when a commercial transportation company fails to insure a motor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle is also uninsured, responsibility for accident claims involving the uninsured vehicle fall to no-fault insurers who insure other vehicles owned by the same company. In Docket No. 319342, Stanley Hughes was injured while operating an uninsured vehicle for Safe Arrival Transportation.

  5. COA holds that a question of fact prevents summary disposition on a PIP claim based on an insurer's fraud exclusion

    Warner Norcross & Judd LLPJason ByrneFebruary 16, 2017

    Thus, defendant's insurer was to provide her with those PIP benefits to which she was entitled under the No-Fault Act. MCL 500.3114(4)(a). Plaintiff claimed PIP benefits that included medical expenses and replacement services for household chores.

  6. No-fault insurer liable for attorney fees after its attempt to “rewrite” statute and failure to pay first and seek reimbursement later

    Warner Norcross & Judd LLPConor DuganFebruary 9, 2015

    The Court then rejected Millers’ argument that it had no responsibility to pay Adanalic’s PIP benefits because workers’ compensation benefits were “available” to him under MCL 500.3106(2) because DIS denied Adanalic’s workers’ compensation claim. The Court also rejected Millers’ argument that it was not primarily liable by affirming that DIS’s no-fault insurer Harco was not liable under MCL 500.3114(3) because Adanalic was an independent contractor rather than an employee of DIS. Finally, the Court agreed with Spectrum’s argument on appeal that it was entitled to attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). Millers did not pose a legitimate question of statutory interpretation by simply inventing an alternative reading of the parked vehicle exception that was inconsistent with the statute as written and the prior caselaw applying it.