Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for injuries sustained by a semi-truck driver; Insurer priority; Whether the truck driver was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of MCL 500.3114(3); The economic-reality test; Duckworth v Cherokee Ins Co; Adanalic v Harco Nat’l Ins Co; The McKissic factors; McKissic v Bodine; Totality of the circumstances; Clark v United Techs Auto, Inc

The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant-insurer (Berkely) by finding plaintiff-truck driver (Umicevic) was not an employee for purposes of recovering no-fault benefits from Berkley’s insured (non-party trucking company Red Line) under MCL 500.3114(3). Umicevic sought PIP benefits from Berkley for injuries he sustained when he drove a semi-truck owned by Red Line off the road and collided with a power line tower in Texas (while delivering goods from Michigan to Texas on behalf of Red Line). The trial court agreed with Berkley that Umicevic and intervening plaintiff-ZMC failed to raise a genuine factual dispute as to Umicevic’s status as an independent contractor and, thus, Berkley was not required to pay PIP benefits under its policy with Red Line. As such, it granted summary disposition for Berkley. On appeal, the court found the trial court erred in its analysis of the issues in this case. “As this Court stated in Duckworth, all factors under the economic-reality test should be considered, and, when applying the economic-reality test, courts should consider the totality of the circumstances.” In doing so here, “the economic-reality test suggests that there was sufficient evidence to establish a disputed question of fact that an employee-employer relationship may have existed between Red Line and Umicevic.” Thus, the trial court erred by finding Umicevic was not an employee of Red Line. Reversed and remanded.