Where a defendant insurance company was awarded summary disposition, that judgment should be affirmed because the plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to personal protection insurance or uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits.
“On the morning of August 5, 2019, plaintiff was driving a BMW titled and registered to her, but insured under a commercial auto insurance policy issued by defendant State Auto Insurance Companies (State) to I & D Construction, Inc, a company owned and operated by her husband, on northbound M-39. Traffic was slowing, as was plaintiff, when she was rear-ended by a car allegedly owned by defendants, Adnan and Ossama Harb (‘the Harbs’), and driven by defendant, Randa Hammoud (‘Hammoud’). The collision forced plaintiff’s vehicle into the vehicle in front of her and plaintiff suffered neck, back, and shoulder injuries because of the collision.
“With respect to plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits, she asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in State’s favor because State was first in priority for the payment of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114 prior to the 2019 change in the no-fault laws. According to plaintiff, the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) issued order 19-048-M regarding implementation of the priority amendments which directed that insurers may not implement the amendments until they submitted revised forms and rates for the Director’s review. Plaintiff contends that State did not prove it submitted revised forms and rates such that it remained first in priority for payment of her PIP benefits. Plaintiff is incorrect.
“The State policy issued on the BMW specifies that it is business auto coverage for a private corporation and describes the business as ‘contractors.’ Under ‘number of employees’ for the business, the number ‘1’ appears. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she worked full time at the time of the accident as the office manager for Affiliated Diagnostics. She testified that she helped her husband with invoices for his company, I & D, but she was not an employee of the company and did not get paid for her work. Presumably, then, the one employee referenced in the policy was plaintiff’s husband, Ali Abdullah. I & D and Ali Abdullah are thus one and the same and plaintiff is not entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(1) as either ‘the person named in the policy’ or the spouse of the person named in the policy.
“Turning to plaintiff’s claim for uninsured/underinsured benefits, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erroneously granted summary disposition in State’s favor because State allegedly changed the policy to exclude the BMW after the accident occurred and because State admitted it had and would provide the coverage to plaintiff. We disagree.”
Bazzi v. State Auto Ins. Co.; MiLW 08-108102, 6 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Garrett, J., Servitto, J., Redford, J.; on appeal from Wayne Circuit Court; Edward L. Ewald for appellant; Travis Peterson for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0