Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

May 14, 2010 

138869(70) 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138869 

 COA: 283815 

Wayne CC: 2007-700367-NF 

TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 21, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). 

 I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order denying defendant’s motion for 

reconsideration and instead would grant leave to appeal in this case and in Spectrum v 

Titan Ins, No. 140109. These cases both raise the significant question of when a spouse 

or live-in companion of a registered owner of an uninsured motor vehicle will be deemed 

an “owner” of that vehicle, notwithstanding that their name is not on the title to the 

vehicle. MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i), defines “owner” to include “a person renting a motor 

vehicle or having the use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period that is greater 

than 30 days.” (Emphasis added). Being deemed an “owner” carries significant 

consequences because MCL 500.3113(b) bars an owner from no-fault benefits “for 

accidental bodily injury if at the time of the accident. . .[t]he person was the owner or 

registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle involved in the accident with respect to which 

the [insurance] required by [MCL 500.3101 or MCL 500.3103] was not in effect.” 

 In this case, Maria Jimenez was injured while driving an uninsured vehicle titled 

in the name of her live-in companion, Jose Gonzales. She estimated that she had driven 

the van four times over the previous four months since the vehicle was purchased. In 

Spectrum, Kevin Zoerman was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving an 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 14, 2010 

d0511 

 

2

uninsured vehicle titled in the name of his wife, Brandy Zoerman. Mr. Zoerman had 

driven the vehicle an estimated 3-5 times over the previous 14 months. 

 Defendant argued in each case that no-fault coverage was precluded because Mr. 

Zoerman and Ms. Jimenez were each an “owner” pursuant to MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i), 

i.e., they had “the use” of the vehicle for a period greater than 30 days. The trial court 

and the Court of Appeals ruled to the contrary, arguing that neither of these persons 

enjoyed “regular” or “exclusive” use of the vehicle. 

 I would grant leave to appeal to consider defendant’s argument that the Court of 

Appeals has engrafted a “regular” or “exclusive” use requirement onto the statutory 

definition of “owner,” and that such requirement is nowhere found in the statute. Rather, 

defendant argues, the focus must be upon whether a person had a “right to use” a vehicle. 

I would also grant leave generally to assess the circumstances under which a person may 

avoid an “owner” designation under MCL 500.3101(2)(h)(i) by the expedient of titling an 

uninsured vehicle in the name of a family member living in the same household. The 

financial implications of the questions posed in this case are considerable for all 

automobile policy holders in this state. 

 CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.