In Allen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., No. 253015, 2005 WL 2438520 (Mich. App. Oct. 4, 2005), a Michigan appeals court ruled that the joyriding family member exception to the state's no-fault law precluded an injured driver's recovery of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits.

 

Benjamin Strother, who resided with but was not related to Heidi Allen, was injured while driving a car solely owned by Allen. Because Strother had lost his driver's license due to alcohol-related offenses, he did not have Allen's permission to use her car.

 

Allen, acting as conservator of Strother's estate, sought PIP benefits under her State Farm auto policy. The trial court determined that Michigan's no-fault act precluded Strother's recovery of PIP benefits.

 

The appeals court first looked at the relevant provisions of the no-fault act. One section stated that a PIP policy provides coverage for “the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household.” The court said that Strother clearly was not covered under this provision because he did not fit the listed criteria. Another provision stated that PIP benefits are not available if the person took the motor vehicle unlawfully, unless there was a reasonable belief that he was entitled to take the vehicle.

 

Since the term “taken unlawfully” is not defined by the statute, the court examined case law where the phrase had been interpreted. In Priesman v. Meridian, 490 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 1992), the Michigan Supreme Court created a judicial exception to the statute for “'joyriding family members;' generally teenagers taking their parents' vehicles without permission.” Another Michigan court held in Butterworth Hosp. v. Farm Bur. Ins., 570 N.W.2d 244 (Mich. App. 1997) that “when a vehicle is taken by a family member, benefits will only be denied under [Michigan statues] if there is an actual 'intent to steal' the vehicle.”

 

While the court acknowledged that Strother did not intend to permanently deprive Allen of her car and that he was actually joyriding, he was not biologically or legally related to Allen, so the exception could not be applied. Thus, Strother was precluded from collecting PIP benefits under Allen's policy.