Javell Cyrus v. Devin Lauer ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAVELL CYRUS, UNPUBLISHED
April 27, 2023
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 359942
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 20-006553-NI
DEVIN LAUER and WILLIE RAINES,
Defendants,
and
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SWARTZLE and FEENEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff’s grandfather rented a vehicle that plaintiff was driving when she was involved in
a collision on July 11, 2019. Allstate Insurance Company denied plaintiff’s claim for personal-
injury-protection benefits, and the trial court denied Allstate’s motion for summary disposition
after the insurer argued that plaintiff was not entitled to those benefits because she had unlawfully
taken the vehicle. We reverse.
Plaintiff testified during her deposition that she was with her grandfather when he rented
the vehicle, but she was unsure of the rental process even though she confirmed that she was not
added as a driver on the rental agreement. She also testified that her grandfather asked her to drive
the vehicle, which she willingly accepted. After the collision, the rental company informed
plaintiff’s grandfather that plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle was unauthorized under the rental
agreement because authorized drivers needed to present a valid driver’s license. Plaintiff’s
certified driving record indicated that she pleaded guilty on May 29, 2019, to driving with a
suspended or revoked license, and she did not pay to have her license reinstated until July 12,
2019, one day after the collision.
-1-
Allstate argued that plaintiff was unlawfully driving the vehicle and, therefore, it was
entitled to summary disposition. The trial court denied Allstate’s motion for summary disposition
because Allstate had not demonstrated that plaintiff was knowingly using the vehicle without
authority.
Allstate now appeals with leave granted. Cyrus v Lauer, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered May 6, 2022 (Docket No. 359842).
Allstate moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). “We review de novo
a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary disposition.” Sherman v City of St
Joseph, 332 Mich App 626, 632; 957 NW2d 838 (2020) (cleaned up). This Court reviews a motion
brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “by considering the pleadings, admissions, and other evidence
submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Patrick v Turkelson,
322 Mich App 595, 605; 913 NW2d 369 (2018). “Summary disposition is appropriate if there is
no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Sherman, 332 Mich App at 632.
“The no-fault act permits an insurer to avoid coverage of PIP benefits under certain
enumerated circumstances, such as those listed in MCL 500.3113.” Ahmed et al v Tokio Marine
America Ins Co, 337 Mich App 1, 9; 972 NW2d 860 (2021) (cleaned up). The collision happened
July 11, 2019, after the No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3101 et seq, was amended on June 1, 2019, but
the language of MCL 500.3113(a) remained the same through the amendment. MCL 500.3113(a)
states:
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:
(a) The person was willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle
or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and the person knew or should have
known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully.
In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff willingly agreed to
operate the vehicle after being asked to drive it by her grandfather. Further, plaintiff’s driving of
the vehicle was contrary to the Michigan Vehicle Code because she was driving it without a valid
license. See Ahmed, 337 Mich App at 20 n 8. Violating the Michigan Vehicle Code constitutes
unlawful conduct for purposes of MCL 500.3113(a). See id. at 11 n 5. Thus, there is no genuine
issue of material fact that plaintiff took the vehicle unlawfully. Lastly, as this Court has explained
in Ahmed, drivers are required to know their driving status, id. at 26-27, and plaintiff certainly
knew that she was without a valid license at the time of the collision because she pleaded guilty to
driving with a revoked or suspended license a few weeks before the collision. Further, plaintiff
did not pay to have her license reinstated until the day after the collision. Thus, plaintiff should
have known that she took the vehicle unlawfully because she knew that she did not have a valid
-2-
license at the time she was driving the vehicle.
Reversed. This Court does not retain jurisdiction. Allstate, as the prevailing party, may
tax costs under MCR 7.219.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
-3-