September 18, 2026
In the recently published decision of Labser PLC v Farmers Insurance Exchange, the Court of Appeals addressed whether medical providers who treated Joshua Simpson, a person without personal automobile insurance who was injured while operating an uninsured vehicle, could recover personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from a Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. The Court concluded that because Simpson was a constructive owner of the uninsured vehicle, his injuries were not covered by PIP under the no-fault act and thus, the medical providers who treated Simpson did not constitute providers that rendered treatment to an injured person for injuries covered by PIP. MCL 500.3157(1) Plaintiff providers in this case, then, were not permitted to succeed on their direct claim to recover PIP benefits from Farmers.
In Labser, Simpson was injured while driving a vehicle that his live-in girlfriend, Kiera Burgos, had purchased less than two weeks earlier. The vehicle was uninsured and titled solely in Burgos’ name although Burgos did not have a driver’s license when the vehicle was purchased. While Simpson was not the titled owner, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that he: (1) identified himself and Burgos as the vehicle’s owners on his PIP application; (2) was the vehicle’s primary driver; (3) kept the primary key in his pocket and had access to the spare key; (4) could use the vehicle without obtaining Burgos’ permission; (5) purchased gas and contributed to its maintenance; (6) used the vehicle in connection with work on a house he had purchased; and (7) arranged for the vehicle’s towing, sale, and disposal for scrap after the accident. Defendant Farmers was assigned Simpson’s claim for PIP benefits through the MACP but denied that claim based upon its belief that Simpson was a constructive owner of the uninsured vehicle. Plaintiffs Labser and Northland Radiology, which treated Simpson, then separately sought payment of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3112 and as assignees of Simpson.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s granting of summary disposition in favor of Farmers. The Court noted that, under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i), an “owner” includes a person who has the use of a vehicle, under a lease “or otherwise,” for more than 30 days. Relying on Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524 (2004) and the Michigan Supreme Court’s recent decision in Abdulla v Progressive Southeastern Ins Co, the Court explained that the statute focuses on a person’s right to use a vehicle and whether that right will remain in effect for more than 30 days – not whether the person had already used it for 30 days before the accident. Simpson’s unrestricted, unsupervised, and primary use of the vehicle in this case constituted possessory or proprietary use consistent with ownership. Neither exclusive use nor a written agreement was required. Because the arrangement was intended to continue beyond 30 days, Simpson was a constructive owner and, as an owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, Simpson was disqualified from receiving PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).
The Labser Court further concluded that regardless of whether Plaintiff providers had a direct cause of action to recover PIP benefits, MCL 500.3112, that provision only allows a provider listed in MCL 500.3157 to assert a direct cause of action against an insurer or under the MACP to recover benefits payable to an injured person. Providers listed in section 3157 include providers that lawfully render treatment to an injured person for injury covered by personal protection insurance. Because Simpson’s injuries were not covered by PIP in this case, Plaintiff providers could not recover PIP from Farmers through the MACP.
This decision strengthens a functional, rather than title-based, approach to vehicle ownership. Actual use for more than 30 days is not required when the arrangement itself was intended to last beyond 30 days. This decision also limits provider claims under MCL 500.3112. A provider’s direct cause of action is procedurally independent, but its substantive right to payment still depends on the patient’s injuries being eligible for PIP coverage. Accordingly, providers cannot use MCL 500.3112 or the MACP to circumvent an injured person’s statutory disqualification under MCL 500.3113.