Background
In October 2020, Carlonda Swoope was staying at her friend Kandice Valentine’s home when she received a call from her mother, who was experiencing chest pain and feared the ambulance would not arrive in time. Without asking Valentine’s permission, Swoope took Valentine’s keys and vehicle to drive to her mother’s home. Swoope had never driven the vehicle before and did not hold a valid driver’s license. She was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the way and sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, with the claim assigned to Citizens Insurance.
Citizens denied coverage and moved for summary disposition, arguing Swoope was barred from PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a) because she had taken the vehicle unlawfully. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially affirmed denial on different grounds—holding that the bar applied because Swoope operated the vehicle without a license—but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that analysis, clarifying that the focus of MCL 500.3113(a) is on whether the vehicle was taken unlawfully, not operated unlawfully. The Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to address Citizens’ alternative argument: that the taking itself was unlawful.
On remand, the Court of Appeals considered solely whether Swoope knew or should have known that taking Valentine’s vehicle without permission constituted an unlawful taking under the no-fault statute.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Swoope was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a). Swoope’s own deposition testimony established that she took Valentine’s vehicle without ever asking for or receiving permission, had never used the vehicle before, and acknowledged she had no permission to operate it. Under the current version of MCL 500.3113(a), a person is disqualified from PIP benefits if they willingly used a vehicle that was taken unlawfully and knew or should have known of the unlawful taking—a standard Swoope plainly met.
The court rejected Swoope’s argument that her close friendship with Valentine and the emergency circumstances created a genuine issue of fact as to whether she “reasonably believed” she was entitled to take the vehicle. The court emphasized that the Legislature had deliberately removed the prior statute’s “reasonable belief” safe harbor when it amended MCL 500.3113(a), replacing it with a broader “knew or should have known” scienter requirement. Swoope’s subjective sense of entitlement in a family emergency was therefore legally irrelevant under the current statutory text.
Because the undisputed facts showed Swoope knowingly took Valentine’s vehicle without permission, no genuine issue of material fact remained. The court reversed the denial of summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Under the current version of MCL 500.3113(a), the disqualification from PIP benefits turns on whether the vehicle was taken unlawfully—not on how it was operated—as clarified by the Michigan Supreme Court in Swoope II.
- The Legislature’s amendment removed the old “reasonable belief” safe harbor; a claimant who knowingly takes a vehicle without the owner’s permission cannot invoke emergency circumstances or personal friendship to escape disqualification.
- A plaintiff’s own deposition admissions that she lacked permission and had never used the vehicle before can be sufficient, standing alone, to establish the unlawful-taking bar as a matter of law on summary disposition.
- The applicable scienter standard—”knew or should have known”—is broader than the prior statute and makes it harder for claimants to qualify for PIP benefits after taking a vehicle without express or reasonably implied authority.
Why It Matters
This decision, on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, provides appellate guidance on how courts should analyze the unlawful-taking bar of MCL 500.3113(a) when there is no express prohibition by the vehicle’s owner. By confirming that the “reasonable belief” defense was legislatively eliminated, the opinion signals to practitioners that sympathy-inducing facts—emergencies, close relationships, good intentions—will not save a PIP claim where the claimant admittedly took a vehicle without permission.
For insurers and their counsel, the ruling reinforces the value of obtaining clear deposition testimony about the circumstances of a vehicle taking, as such admissions can support summary disposition even when ownership relationships are informal or the claimant acted out of apparent necessity. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, the case underscores the importance of scrutinizing the precise statutory text in force at the time of the accident and counseling clients carefully about the consequences of taking a vehicle without unambiguous consent.