Sign In

159660-1 - Maegan Turner v Farmers Insurance Exchange

Maegan Turner, by Walter Sakowski, Conservator,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

Riverview Macomb Home & Attendant Care, LLC,

 

 

 

Intervening Plaintiff,

 

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

(Wayne, Berry, A.)

 

Farmers Insurance Exchange,

 

Jordan Wiener

 

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant-Appellee,

 

and

 

 

Enterprise Leasing Corporation of Detroit, LLC and EAN Holdings, LLC

Defendants/Cross-Defendants-Appellants,

Robert Kamenec

and

 

 

Patsy Villneff and Tamera Harper,

 

 

 

Defendants/Cross-Defendants.

 

 

 

Jonte Everson,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

(Washtenaw – Swartz, D.)

 

v

 

 

Farmers Insurance Exchange,

 

Jordan Wiener

 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

and

 

 

Enterprise Leasing Company,

 

Robert Kamenec

 

Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

 

Summary

These two cases involve disputes between Farmers Insurance Exchange and Enterprise Leasing Company over the payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.  Vehicles owned by Enterprise and registered in other states were involved in accidents in Michigan.  Enterprise, which is self-insured, argued that it was not liable to pay PIP benefits arising out of the accidents because the vehicles had not been operated in Michigan for more than 30 days in the applicable year and were not required to be registered in Michigan.  The trial courts in both cases granted summary disposition in favor of Enterprise, but the Court of Appeals reversed in a split published opinion, holding that Enterprise was not entitled to summary disposition – and Farmers was entitled to summary disposition – because Enterprise was subject to the priority provision in the former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) as the insurer of the owner of the vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicles were required to be registered in Michigan.  The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether a self-insured vehicle owner is subject to the priority provision in the former MCL 500.3114(4)(a) as “[t]he insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied” if the self-insured entity’s vehicle involved in the accident was not subject to the security provisions of the no-fault act because it was registered in another state, did not need to be registered in this state, and was not operated in this state for more than 30 days during the applicable year.         ​