System v. Esurance Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2010
• Docket Number: Docket No. 288633.
• Citation: System v. Esurance Ins. Co., 288 Mich.App. 593, 808 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. App. 2010)
• Parties: HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM v. ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

288 Mich.App. 593

808 N.W.2d 1

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM

v.ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Docket No. 288633.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted May 11, 2010, at Detroit.Decided June 8, 2010, at 9:10 a.m.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. (by Paul J. Millenbach), Farmington Hills, for Henry Ford Health System.

Siemion Huckabay, P.C. (by Raymond W. Morganti), Southfield, for Esurance Insurance Company.

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and K.F. KELLY and STEPHENS, JJ.

MURPHY, C.J.

Plaintiff, Henry Ford Health System, provided medical services to Travion Hamilton, who was severely injured when a stolen Jeep Cherokee in which he was a passenger struck a utility pole. Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Esurance Insurance Company, the insurer of the stolen vehicle, to recover the cost of Hamilton's medical treatment as a no-fault benefit.¹ Relying on MCL 500.3113(a), Esurance denied liability, arguing that Hamilton, and thus plaintiff, was not entitled to no-fault benefits because at the time of the accident Hamilton was using the Jeep knowing it had been stolen.² The trial court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary disposition, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found that Hamilton was using the Jeep at the time of the accident, that he had unlawfully taken the vehicle, and that Hamilton did not reasonably believe that he was entitled to take and use the Jeep. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment of no cause of action in favor of Esurance.³ Plaintiff appeals as of right. We hold that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff's motion for summary disposition because there was an absolute dearth of evidence that Hamilton was using a motor vehicle that “he ... had taken unlawfully....” MCL 500.3113(a). We thus reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff.

I. FACTS

The documentary evidence indicated that Hamilton's girlfriend, Chanda Profic, borrowed the Jeep from an acquaintance for a small fee knowing that it was a stolen vehicle. There is no dispute that the Jeep had been stolen from its owner, and there is no claim that Hamilton participated directly in taking the vehicle from the owner. Profic was not provided with keys to operate the vehicle. The Jeep's ignition cylinder had been removed by damaging the housing on the steering column. The door lock on the driver's side was also missing. The vehicle was given to Profic with the engine running, and she did not know how to turn it off or restart it. Profic, who did not have a driver's license or own her own vehicle, later picked up Hamilton in the vehicle, and the two of them drove around and used the vehicle for three to five hours. During this period, Profic and Hamilton stopped several times to visit friends or to go inside a store. They would leave the Jeep unattended with the engine running during these stops. During one stop, a friend turned the engine off and had to restart the vehicle for Profic because she did not know how to start it without a key. Hamilton never operated or drove the Jeep, but simply rode along as a passenger. Profic and Hamilton were later involved in an accident when the vehicle struck a utility pole, causing severe and permanent injuries to Hamilton. Hamilton did not have any automobile insurance of his own.

The trial court entertained cross-motions for summary disposition in which the parties presented a variety of arguments, including plaintiff's argument that there was no evidence that Hamilton himself had taken the vehicle unlawfully and, thus, the no-fault coverage exclusion of MCL 500.3113(a) was not implicated. The trial court denied the motions, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary disposition in favor of either party. The case proceeded to trial, and a judgment of no cause of action predicated on the jury's verdict was entered. As noted, the jurors found that Hamilton was using the Jeep at the time of the accident, that he had unlawfully taken the vehicle, and that Hamilton did not reasonably believe that he was entitled to take and use the Jeep. Plaintiff appeals as of right.

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues, in part, that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because it was entitled to its claim for payment as a matter of law given that there was a complete absence of evidence that Hamilton himself had taken the stolen vehicle, let alone taken it unlawfully. We agree.

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND PRINCIPLES GOVERNING MCR 2.116(C)(10)

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177, 183, 665 N.W.2d 468 (2003). Also reviewed de novo are issues of statutory interpretation. Feyz v. Mercy Mem. Hosp., 475 Mich. 663, 672, 719 N.W.2d 1 (2006).

MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides for summary disposition when there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a party's cause of action. Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153, 161, 516 N.W.2d 475 (1994). A trial court may grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, show that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact. Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358, 362, 547 N.W.2d 314 (1996), citing MCR 2.116(G)(4) and (5). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” West, 469 Mich. at 183, 665 N.W.2d 468. A court may only consider “substantively admissible evidence actually proffered” relative to a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 121, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). The trial court is not permitted to assess credibility, to weigh the evidence, or to determine the facts, and if material evidence conflicts, it is not appropriate to grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Skinner, 445 Mich. at 161, 516 N.W.2d 475; Hines v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 265 Mich.App. 432, 437, 695 N.W.2d 84 (2005).

B. PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

In Zwiers v. Growney, 286 Mich.App. 38, 44, 778 N.W.2d 81 (2009), this Court set forth the well-established principles of statutory construction:

Our primary task in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The words contained in a statute provide us with the most reliable evidence of the Legislature's intent. In ascertaining legislative intent, this Court gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in the statute. We must consider both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme. This Court must avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory. The statutory language must be read and understood in its grammatical context, unless it is clear that something different was intended. If the wording or language of a statute is unambiguous, the Legislature is deemed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and we must enforce the statute as written. A necessary corollary of these principles is that a court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.]

C. DISCUSSION

Under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. , and with respect to personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits, “an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of [the act].” MCL 500.3105(1). With regard to PIP benefits, they are payable for, in part, “[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” MCL 500.3107(1)(a). Esurance argues that Hamilton was barred from recovering no-fault PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a), which provides:

A person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits for accidental bodily injury if at the time of the accident any of the following circumstances existed:

(a) The person was using a motor vehicle or motorcycle which he or she had taken unlawfully, unless the person reasonably believed that he or she was entitled to take and use the vehicle. [Emphasis added.]

Plaintiff argues that Hamilton never engaged in the act of taking the Jeep from anyone; rather, it had already been taken by the time he hopped into the vehicle and rode along as a passenger.

Addressing the language of MCL 500.3113(a), this Court observed in Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Plumb, 282 Mich.App. 417, 425, 766 N.W.2d 878 (2009):

Thus, PIP benefits will be denied if the taking of the vehicle was unlawful and the person who took the vehicle lacked “a reasonable basis for believing that he [or she] could take and use the vehicle.” Bronson Methodist Hosp. v. Forshee, 198 Mich.App. 617, 626, 499 N.W.2d 423 (1993). When applying § 3113(a), the first level of inquiry will always be whether the taking of the vehicle was unlawful. If the taking was lawful, the inquiry ends because § 3113(a) does not apply.

We would add that the inquiry into whether MCL 500.3113(a) is implicated must also necessarily entail ascertaining whether the injured individual seeking coverage took the vehicle or engaged in the taking of the vehicle.

The terminology “taken” or “had taken,” as used in MCL 500.3113(a), is not defined in the statutory scheme. With respect to statutory language, “[a]ll words...