Even After Dye, Who Owns the Vehicle Matters for PIP Coverage

In Dye v Esurance, 504 Mich 167 (2019), the Supreme Court held that MCL 500.3113(b) does not disqualify a person from recovering PIP benefits where the only policy covering their vehicle is in the name of a non-owner or registrant. So long as the vehicle is listed on someone’s policy, MCL 500.3101(1) – and, in turn, § 3113(b) – are satisfied.

However, § 3113(b) and § 3101(1) still require that a vehicle be covered under some policy. Otherwise, someone injured while an occupant of their own vehicle is kicked out of the no-fault system.

In Tackoor, there was no coverage for the Plaintiff’s vehicle because – although it was nominally still listed on her grandfather’s policy, who had given her the vehicle shortly before her accident – the grandfather’s policy contained a clause which automatically terminated coverage for any vehicle he “sold, assigned, gifted or transferred….”

The Tackoor panel also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the automatic termination clause brought about a “cancellation”; the panel found that the statutes requiring notice of cancellation were inapplicable.

In Tackoor, Esurance was represented by Secrest Wardle in the trial court and on appeal.

To access the full article: http://bit.ly/2uQupKJ