Katherine E. Ross Obtains Summary Disposition in Case for PIP and UIM Benefits

Mariam Bazzi v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 20-007272-NI. Plaintiff sought Michigan No-Fault and Underinsured Motorist Benefits following a motor vehicle accident. However, the policy at issue was a commercial automobile policy issued to the plaintiff’s husband’s company. The plaintiff was not a named insured on the policy and was not an employee of her husband’s company. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was operating a vehicle titled and registered to her, not the company. As such, it was argued that under MCL 500.3114(3), PIP benefits were not available because the vehicle was not owned by the employer or used in the course of the employer’s business. Additionally, it was argued that UIM benefits were not available under the policy, but the policy specifically noted that UIM benefits were only available for “owned autos” and the vehicle in question was not owned by the named insured, but rather by the plaintiff as her own personal vehicle. The Court agreed and dismissed both the PIP and UIM claims against State Auto.