-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

BEAUMONT HEALTH SYSTEM, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

November 8, 2016 

v No. 328291 

Oakland Circuit Court 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

LC No. 2014-140070-NF 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

DONNA WAECHTER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v 

TAMIKA SMITH, 

 Defendant, 

and 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY and CITIZENS 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 329103 

Macomb Circuit Court 

LC No. 2014-002466-NI 

Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and SAAD and METER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 
-2- 

 This case involves two consolidated no-fault insurance cases.1 In Docket No. 328291, 

plaintiff Beaumont Health System (Beaumont) appeals as of right an order granting the motion 

for summary disposition filed by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 

(State Farm). In Docket No. 329103, plaintiff Donna Waechter (Waechter) appeals as of right an 

opinion and order granting the motion for summary disposition filed by State Farm, in 

concurrence with defendant Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest (Citizens). We affirm. 

 The following facts are undisputed by the parties. On May 1, 2013, Waechter was 

involved in an accident while driving a 2007 BMW. She purchased the BMW from Summit 

Place Kia in 2012. Waechter’s friend, Diane Spahn, cosigned for the purchase of the vehicle. 

Spahn’s name appeared on the title for the BMW when registered with the state of Michigan, and 

on the date of the accident. 

 At the time of the accident, Waechter’s ex-husband, Gregg Waechter (Gregg), had an 

insurance policy through Citizens that covered the BMW and two other cars. Gregg, who was 

not an owner of the BMW, was the only named insured on the policy, although Waechter was 

listed as a principal driver. Waechter and Gregg divorced in January 2013. Spahn never 

purchased insurance for the BMW, although she had an insurance policy through State Farm for 

a Buick Lacrosse at the time of the accident. 

 In Docket No. 328291, Beaumont sued State Farm for reimbursement for medical 

services provided to Waechter as a result of injuries she allegedly suffered in the accident. In 

Docket No. 329103, Waechter filed suit against Citizens and State Farm for payment of personal 

protection insurance (PIP) benefits. State Farm filed motions for summary disposition in both 

cases pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), asserting that Waechter and, therefore, Beaumont, were 

ineligible for PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b). The respective trial courts granted the 

motions for summary disposition. 

 On appeal, Beaumont argues that Waechter is entitled to PIP benefits from State Farm 

pursuant to MCL 500.3114(4), because Spahn insured a Buick through State Farm at the time of 

the accident. In contrast, Waechter argues that she is entitled to PIP benefits from Citizens 

because Citizens insured the BMW at the time of the accident through a policy issued to Gregg. 

We disagree with both arguments. 

 A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. 

Barnes v Farmers Ins Exch, 308 Mich App 1, 5; 862 NW2d 681 (2014). “In reviewing a motion 

under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court considers the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, 

and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Id. “Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the documentary evidence 

 

1

 State Farm filed a motion to consolidate these two no-fault cases on November 12, 2015. This 

Court entered an order granting State Farm’s motion to consolidate on November 30, 2015. 

Waechter v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 30, 2015 

(Docket Nos. 328291 and 329103). 
-3- 

submitted by the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that 

there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. Pennington v Longabaugh, 271 Mich App 101, 104; 719 NW2d 616 (2006). 

 The trial courts did not err when they granted the motions for summary disposition. 

MCL 500.3113(b) bars Waechter’s entitlement to PIP benefits. In turn, State Farm is not liable 

to Beaumont for medical services rendered to Waechter in connection with injuries resulting 

from the motor vehicle accident. 

 “Under the no-fault act, ‘[t]he owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be 

registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection 

insurance, property protection insurance, and residual liability insurance.’ ” Iqbal v Bristol West 

Ins Group, 278 Mich App 31, 37; 748 NW2d 574 (2008), quoting MCL 500.3101(1).2 MCL 

500.31133

 provides, in pertinent part: 

 A person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits 

for accidental bodily injury if at the time of the accident any of the following 

circumstances existed: 

* * * 

 (b) The person was the owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or 

motorcycle involved in the accident with respect to which the security required by 

section 3101 or 3103 was not in effect. 

 In Iqbal, id. at 32, 34, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving 

a BMW. The parties agreed that the plaintiff’s brother owned the BMW, but disputed whether 

the plaintiff should also be considered an owner. Id. at 37-38. The plaintiff’s brother insured the 

BMW through Auto Club Insurance Association of Michigan, but the plaintiff failed to obtain 

insurance for the BMW. Id. at 32-33, 39-40. This Court determined that MCL 500.3113(b) did 

not bar the plaintiff from entitlement to PIP benefits, regardless of whether the plaintiff owned 

the vehicle at the time of the accident. Id. at 38-40, 46. The Court stated: “While plaintiff did 

not obtain this coverage, there is no dispute that the BMW had the coverage, and that is the only 

requirement under MCL 500.3113(b), making it irrelevant whether it was plaintiff’s brother who 

procured the vehicle’s coverage or plaintiff.” Id. at 40. 

 In a subsequent decision, this Court declined to extend the ruling in Iqbal to allow an 

owner to obtain PIP benefits where the only insurance on the motor vehicle involved in the 

accident was secured by a non-owner. Barnes, 308 Mich App at 7-9. There, the plaintiff was 

 

2

 MCL 500.3101 was amended after Iqbal, but the amendments do not affect the portion of MCL 

500.3101 quoted here, or this appeal. 

3

 MCL 500.3113 was amended in 2014, but the amendment did not alter MCL 500.3113(b). 

2014 PA 489. 
-4- 

involved in an accident while driving a motor vehicle she co-owned with her mother. Id. at 2-3. 

At the time of the accident, the motor vehicle was only covered by an insurance policy obtained 

by a non-owner. Id. at 3, 9. This Court determined that, pursuant to MCL 500.3113(b), the 

plaintiff was ineligible for PIP benefits. Id. at 8-9. In so doing, it distinguished Iqbal, stating, in 

part: “[W]hile Iqbal held that each and every owner need not obtain insurance, it did not allow 

for owners to avoid the consequences of MCL 500.3113(b) if no owner obtained the required 

insurance. Thus, under the plain language of MCL 500.3113(b), when none of the owners 

maintains the requisite coverage, no owner may recover PIP benefits.” Id. at 8-9. 

 In accordance with Barnes, the trial courts properly granted the motions for summary 

disposition and determined that Waechter was ineligible for PIP benefits pursuant to MCL 

500.3113(b). The parties do not dispute that neither Waechter nor Spahn, the only two owners of 

the BMW, had insurance for the BMW. Thus, the security required by MCL 500.3101 was not 

in effect at the time of the accident. 

 Waechter argues that, under Iqbal, she is entitled to PIP benefits from Citizens because 

Citizens insured the BMW at the time of the accident through a policy issued to Gregg. Thus, 

she claims, the motor vehicle itself had insurance at the time of the accident. She claims that this 

Court’s decision in Barnes directly conflicts with Iqbal and cannot undercut Iqbal’s precedential 

effect. However, in Iqbal, one owner of the motor vehicle at issue maintained the required 

security on the vehicle, while in Barnes, neither owner maintained the required security, and the 

Barnes Court specifically discussed Iqbal and reached a conclusion regarding how Iqbal should 

be distinguished. Id. at 8. This legal conclusion on the part of the Barnes Court is binding 

precedent. As noted by State Farm on appeal, the cases “evince this Court’s consistent position 

that when an owner insures a car, then any other owner is entitled to PIP benefits under the 

security obtained for the car, but when no owner insures the car, then any owner is not entitled to 

PIP benefits.” 

 Beaumont argues that Waechter is entitled to PIP benefits from State Farm pursuant to 

MCL 500.3114(4), because Spahn insured a Buick through State Farm at the time of the 

accident. Beaumont’s argument lacks merit. The provisions in MCL 500.3114,4

 listing the 

priority in which insurance companies must pay PIP benefits, need not be considered if an 

individual is not entitled to PIP benefits. Waechter is not entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 

 

4

 MCL 500.3114 is titled “Persons entitled to personal protection or personal injury benefits; 

insurer providing coverage,” and MCL 500.3114(4) provides, in pertinent part: 

(4) Except as provided in subsections (1) to (3), a person suffering accidental 

bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident while an occupant of a motor 

vehicle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the 

following order of priority: 

(a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied. 
-5- 

500.3113(b). In turn, Beaumont is not entitled to payment from State Farm for medical services 

rendered to Waechter. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter