First-party no-fault dispute; Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Maintaining proper security; MCL 500.3101; Whether plaintiff was an owner or the registrant for purposes of MCL 500.3101(3) & 500.3113(b); Effect of ownership by a limited liability company (LLC); Insurer priority; MCL 500.3114(1)-(3) & (5); Attorney fees; MCL 500.3148(1); Miller v Secura Ins; Penalty interest; MCL 500.3142(2)

The court concluded there was insufficient indicia of plaintiff-Abdulla’s ownership of the tractor-trailer he was driving at the time of the accident to find that he “was either an owner or the registrant of the tractor for purposes of MCL 500.3101(3) and” 500.3113(b). Further, defendant-Auto Club was first in priority under MCL 500.3101(1) and 500.3114(1), and it was responsible for penalty interest under MCL 500.3142(2). But the court found that Abdulla was not entitled to attorney fees because “Auto Club’s denial of benefits was not ‘unreasonable’ under MCL 500.3148(1) and the circumstances” here. The “tractor was registered in Michigan, and titled to” a nonparty LLC (Tornado Trucking) that was solely owned by Abdulla. The trailer was titled to another nonparty. Auto Club unsuccessfully sought summary disposition on the basis Abdulla was barred from collecting PIP “benefits from any of the defendant insurers by operation of MCL 500.3113(b) because” he did not maintain no-fault coverage on the tractor. The court noted that while he was “the sole member of Tornado Trucking,” pursuant to statute, “‘a member has no interest in specific limited liability company property.’” He was simply “an agent of Tornado Trucking.” There was also no evidence he “used the tractor in a propriety or possessory manner. Rather, his use of the tractor was incidental to the business of Tornado Trucking and the long-haul trucking companies” it served. The court found no grounds in the record to pierce the LLC’s corporate veil “and declare Abdulla the owner of the tractor for these statutory purposes.” As to priority, none of the exceptions in MCL 500.3114(2), (3), or (5) applied. Thus, “the general rules apply, and Abdulla must look to the policy of a relative domiciled in the same household” – in this case, the Auto Club policy issued to his father, with whom he was domiciled. As to penalty interest, there was “no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether, under MCL 500.3242(2) that Abdulla’s PIP benefits were overdue[.]” But the court held that the trial court erred in awarding Abdulla attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1) because Auto Club denied him “payment of benefits on the basis of legitimate questions of statutory construction and application concerning MCL 500.3101(3) and MCL 500.3113(b). A resolution of these questions goes to the heart of whether Abdulla is to receive PIP benefits.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.