Opinion
No. 141448.
January 13, 2011.
Reported below: 288 Mich. App. 593.
Leave to Appeal Denied.
The result here — in which defendant insurance company is required to provide no-fault benefits to a passenger who was riding in a vehicle insured by defendant when it was obviously stolen — is deeply troubling, but I agree with this Court, and with the Court of Appeals, that the law as it now stands compels this result. However, while I am bound to follow this law, I take this opportunity to express my. concerns. Under MCL 500.3113(a), a person, such as the injured person in this case, who has no insurance, and who was knowingly riding in a stolen vehicle driven by a person without a driver's license while under the influence of alcohol, is entitled to no-fault benefits from the insurer of the stolen vehicle. Moreover, under this same provision, there is confusion as to whether an injured person who himself takes a vehicle without permission, and who drives it without insurance and without a valid license, and who drives it while intoxicated, is entitled to no-fault benefits. Compare Amerisure Ins Co v. Plumb, 282 Mich. App. 417 (2009), lv den 485 Mich 909 (2009), with Farmers Ins Exch v Young, 488 Mich 980 (directing oral argument on whether to grant the application). See, also, Budget Rent-A-Car Sys v Detroit, 482 Mich 1098 (2008), in which this Court affirmed an award of no-fault benefits to a fleeing felon who had used his car as a shield while aiming a firearm at a pursuing police officer. Coverage in these and similar situations, in my judgment, goes far beyond the scope of what an insurer reasonably bargains for when it enters into a policy with the owner of a vehicle, and responsible citizens will inevitably pay these costs through higher premiums. If the coverage in these cases is what is intended by the Legislature, I must defer to its judgment; if, however, it is not, the Legislature should take clear notice that no-fault benefits are now recoverable even by persons whose "fault" pertains to theft, carjacking, and shootouts with the police, rather than "fault" pertaining only to negligent or careless driving of a motor vehicle.
YOUNG, C.J., and CORRIGAN and MARY BETH KELLY, JJ., joined the statement of MARKMAN, J.