First-party no-fault action; “Taken unlawfully”; MCL 500.3113(a); Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins of MI; The “joyriding” statutes (MCL 750.413 & 750.414); The “knew or should have known” standard

Holding that the motorcycle he was riding at the time of the accident “was taken unlawfully by plaintiff,” and he knew it, the court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact for the jury to consider and that the trial court erred in denying defendant-insurer summary disposition. Plaintiff’s girlfriend, D, owned the motorcycle. Defendant contended that plaintiff’s admission he did not have her permission to use the motorcycle the day of the accident barred him from collecting no-fault benefits, under MCL 500.3113(a). It asserted that he “took the motorcycle unlawfully under the terms of the ‘joyriding’ statutes[.]” The court noted there was “no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff’s use of the motorcycle was ‘unauthorized’ because he did not receive” D’s permission to use it. He testified he knew she “would not allow him to ride the motorcycle, even if he asked.” Although he asserted he did not intend to steal it and D did not report it “to the police as missing, this argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the term ‘unlawful’ in this context.” The court next turned to the issue of “whether he ‘knew or should have known’ that he did not have authority to use the motorcycle[.]” He primarily argued that because D never expressly told him he was not permitted to use it, he could not be barred from recovery under MCL 500.3113(a). The court found that while this contention “may have had merit under the previous version of the statute, it fails under the current ‘knew or should have known’ standard.” Under the applicable version, the evidence showed “no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff at least should have known he did not have authority to use the motorcycle. Plaintiff and [D] testified plaintiff’s poor health precluded him from driving the motorcycle” and he had not used it for many years. He admitted he lacked permission to use it, and D confirmed this. Thus, the court concluded that the “undisputed material facts presented to the trial court, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, show plaintiff knew or should have known he was operating the motorcycle unlawfully.” As a result, it erred in determining a genuine issue of material fact existed. Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant’s summary disposition motion.