Skip to Content
Under the Michigan No-Fault Act certain situations will disqualify a person from receiving Personal Injury Protection/Personal Protection Insurance (“PIP”) benefits. One of those situations is codified in MCL 500.3113(a) which states:
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 willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and the person knew or should have known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully.
Recently in Swoope v. Citizens Co. of the Midwest, 2023 Mich. App. LEXIS 9120, Docket No. 464924, (Mich. Ct. App December 14, 2023) the Michigan Court of Appeals has defined an unlawful taking to include situations when a person is driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license.
In Swoope, Plaintiff Carlonda Naishe Swoope, was allegedly injured in an automobile accident that occurred on October 27, 2020. Id. Swoope was driving a vehicle that was owned by her friend. Id. At the time of the accident, Swoope did not have a valid driver’s license and admitted this during her deposition. Id. Swoope, nor the car owner, maintained automobile insurance. Id. Because of this Swoope sought PIP benefits from the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (“MACP”). MACP assigned Swoope’s claim to be handled by Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest. Id. Citizens denied coverage and Swoope filed suit. Citizens then filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that Swoope was disqualified from seeking no-fault benefits because she was unlawfully operating the vehicle and disqualified from benefits under MCL 500.3113(a). Id. The trial court denied the motion and Citizens then sought leave for an interlocutory appeal which was taken up by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Id.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling. Id. In do so, the Court noted that Ahmed v. Tokio Marine American Ins Co, 337 Mich App 1, 10; 972 NW2d 860 (2021) set forth a 3 prong test to evaluate claims defended under MCL 500.3113(a). Id. Citing to Ahmed, the Court of appeals stated:
Ahmed held that "the disqualification applies to any person (1) willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that (2) was unlawfully taken by someone, and (3) the person seeking benefits knew or should have known that the motor vehicle was taken unlawfully." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
The Court in Swoope noted that any violation of the criminal law will constitute an unlawful taking under MCL 500.3113(a). Id.
"[A]ny violation of the criminal law that leads to a taking of a motor vehicle will constitute an 'unlawful taking' for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a).” Id. at 11 n 5.
The Court of appeals held that violations of the criminal law include certain provisions of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et. seq. Id. MCL 257.301 concerns the legality of operating a vehicle without a valid driver’s license and states, in part:
"[A]n individual shall not drive a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless that individual has a valid operator's or chauffeur's license with the appropriate group designation and indorsements for the type or class of vehicle being driven or towed." MCL 257.301(1).
The Court of Appeals further stated that violating this statute is unlawful for the purpose of the MCL 500.3113(a) analysis because there are related criminal penalties. Id. See MCL 257.901; see also Ahmed, 337 Mich. App. At 20 n 8 ("Violation of [ MCL 257.301 and MCL 257.310e(4)] was 'unlawful' . . . because there are associated criminal penalties."). Id.
Citizen’s motion for summary disposition focused on the second and third prong of the Ahmed test because neither party disputed that Swoope was operating the vehicle willingly. The admission by Swoope that she did not have a valid driver’s license satisfied the second prong of the Ahmed test under MCL 500.3113(a). Id. Swoope’s deposition testimony also satisfied the third prong of the Ahmed test. Id. Because Plaintiff had testified that she knew her license was suspended at the time she took the vehicle she would have understood that driving the vehicle without a valid driver’s license was unlawful. Id. Swoope also admitted during her deposition that she knew that the vehicle’s owner did not authorize her to drive the vehicle and she therefore took no affirmative steps to ensure the taking was authorized. Because Swoope was driving without a valid driver’s license and there was no evidence she failed to meet her burden and therefore the Court of Appeals held that the motion for summary disposition should have been granted. The case was reversed and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Although this case is unpublished it comes on the heels of another recent unpublished case that ruled in a similar fashion. See Cyrus v. Lauer, 2023 Mich. App LEXIS 3035, Docket No. 359942, (Mich Ct. App. April 27, 2023). These opinions together clarify that driving without a valid driver’s license in the State of Michigan constitutes an unlawful taking for MCL 500.3113(a) purposes.
