Action by a healthcare provider to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act; Unlawful taking of a vehicle; MCL 500.3113(a); Ahmed v Tokio Marine Am Ins Co; “Taken unlawfully”; Spectrum Health Hosps v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of MI; Michigan’s misdemeanor joyriding statute; MCL 750.414; Rambin v Allstate Ins Co; “Take” & “use”; Monaco v Home-Owners Ins Co; Comparing VHS of MI, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-insurer’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff-healthcare provider’s action seeking PIP benefits, and granting plaintiff summary disposition. Plaintiff sought PIP benefits for services it provided to nonparty-F, who was injured when he crashed his mother’s (J) car. The trial court denied summary disposition for defendant, granted summary disposition for plaintiff, and denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in its rulings because F’s operation of J’s vehicle was an “unlawful taking,” thus disqualifying him and plaintiff from recovering no-fault benefits. Comparing VHS, the court noted there was “no question that possession was transferred to [F] voluntarily, as supported by deposition testimony from both [J] and [F]. In fact, [J] specifically stated that [F] was in possession of the vehicle with her blessing, despite her restriction on his use of the vehicle.” Because the vehicle’s “possession was voluntarily transferred from [J] to [F], there was no taking under MCL 500.3113(a), and it is immaterial that [F’s] subsequent use of the vehicle by driving it without permission exceeded [J’s] authorized scope of use.” The court also agreed “with plaintiff’s assessment that the anticipated actions of an insurer have no bearing on the applicability of exclusions under MCL 500.3113(a). Thus, any consequence to [J] as a result of the trial court’s ruling” did not require reversal. Affirmed.