April 15, 2026
In a much-anticipated opinion, Swoope v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, the Michigan Supreme Court has now confirmed that MCL 500.3113(a) of the No-Fault Act bars entitlement to benefits only when the vehicle was taken unlawfully. This reversed the prior opinion issued by the Court of Appeals, which interpreted the version of the statute as amended in 2014 to preclude benefits if a person’s use or operation of the vehicle was otherwise unlawful, even if the person had been permitted to use the vehicle.
As presently written, the statute bars entitlement to No-Fault benefits if the person is “(1) ‘willingly operating or willingly using’ a vehicle that was (2) ‘taken unlawfully,’ (3) if the person ‘knew or should have known’ it was taken unlawfully.”
In Swoope, the plaintiff was injured while driving her friend’s vehicle, despite having no valid driver’s license and without having sought her friend’s permission. She filed a claim for personal injury protection benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (“MACP”) and that claim was assigned to Citizens, who later sought summary disposition citing Section 3113(a). When the trial court denied the motion, Citizens appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled that Citizens was entitled to summary disposition because of her unlicensed operation of the vehicle constituted an unlawful use of the vehicle. They did not address the lack of permission from the vehicle owner.
In reaching that decision, the Court of Appeals relied, in part, on the case of Ahmed v Tokio Marine America Ins Co, 337 Mich App 1; 972 NW2d 860 (2021), which interpreted the amended statute to exclude benefits where the plaintiff drove a rented vehicle without a valid license. The rental agreement specified that all authorized drivers must have a valid driver’s license. The court reasoned that the plaintiff knew the car was rented, albeit by his wife, and therefore should have known that the terms prohibited him from driving without a valid license, which the court concluded to be “unlawful.”
The Michigan Supreme Court in Swoope began its analysis by noting that while the language of Section 3113(a) was amended in 2014, the key statutory language of “taken unlawfully” retained the same meaning, which is to gain possession of a vehicle contrary to Michigan law. The Court found that in both the pre and post-amended versions of the statute, the actual taking of the vehicle must be unlawful, not just its use or operation.
Since the Court of Appeals had ruled based solely on the fact that the plaintiff drove the vehicle without a valid license, the Supreme Court reversed. It also remanded the case so that the alternative grounds for summary disposition could be explored, i.e., whether the plaintiff took the vehicle without the owner’s permission.