November 03, 2017
In the unpublished decision of Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Gino Zaguroli, the Michigan Court of Appeals held Zaguroli was precluded from receiving no-fault benefits because he was the sole owner of the vehicle he was operating at the time of his motor vehicle accident and he failed to maintain insurance on the vehicle as required under MCL 500.3101(1).
Zaguroli was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 26, 2014, and sustained injuries. At the time of the accident, Zaguroli was driving a 2004 Mazda MPV. The Mazda was listed on a policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff Frankenmuth, to its insured, Dominic Zaguroli. Dominic Zaguroli was the only named insured on the insurance policy. Despite being the sole named insured on the policy, Dominic Zaguroli was not the certificate of title owner of the Mazda that was listed on the policy. Dominic’s deceased wife, Antoinette Zaguroli was the last certificate of title owner and was also the last recorded registrant for the Mazda. Antoinette died in July, 2010, and the registration in her name expired on August 1, 2014.
Frankenmuth’s named insured, Dominic, died prior to the accident on June 4, 2014. As such, on the date of the accident, Defendant Gino Zaguroli was operating the Mazda whose title owner had died 4 years prior, which had no current registrant, and which was listed on an insurance policy whose named insured had died 3 months before the accident.
Frankenmuth filed a motion for summary disposition of its declaratory judgment action, arguing no genuine issue of material fact existed that Gino Zaguroli was indeed the “owner” of the Mazda because he possessed and had use of the vehicle for well-over thirty days prior to the accident, MCL 500.3101(2)(k)(i), but he failed to insure it in violation of MCL 500.3101(1) and therefore was barred from recovering PIP benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3113(b). The Trial Court denied the motion. Frankenmuth appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, vacated, and remanded for entry of an order granting Frankenmuth’s motion, holding Zaguroli was disqualified from entitlement to no-fault benefits because he “owned” the Mazda and failed to maintain insurance for it.
The Court of Appeals found that Zaguroli was the “owner” of the Mazda by virtue of his long-term possession and use of the vehicle. Zaguroli had exclusively and continuously possessed, drove, and maintained the Mazda since his mother’s death in 2010. The Court held that nobody else, Dominic Zaguroli in particular, qualified as an owner. Dominic was deceased at the time of the accident, so he could not be an “owner” of the vehicle, and even before he was deceased, he did not have sufficient use or possession of it to qualify as a constructive owner. The fact that Dominic could have become a title owner by virtue of intestate succession after the death of his wife (the only recorded title owner) did not change anything because he never followed through and actually acquired title. Further, even though the Frankenmuth policy listed the Mazda for coverage, only Dominic Zaguroli was a named insured on that policy. As Gino Zaguroli did not maintain insurance for the Mazda and no one anyone else qualified as an “owner” or “registrant” of the Mazda, the Court held Gino Zaguroli was disqualified from entitlement to no-fault benefits.
******************************
On February 8, 2018, we will present our Anatomy of a Trial presentation, at MSU Management Center in Troy, MI. This will be a presentation regarding the experience of trying a case to a jury involving a Michigan No-Fault PIP claim.
It will be complimentary to our clients with limited seating. An invitation will be sent with registration details in the next couple of weeks.
For inquires, upcoming seminars, or in-house seminar requests please contact Eileen Carty at ecarty@garanlucow.com