TRACY KATHLEEN BOWERS V SHERYL ROWBOTHAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TRACY KATHLEEN BOWERS,
UNPUBLISHED
December 13, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 187617
St. Clair County
LC No. 94-000458-NI
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
NATHAN DREW WHITTAKER and
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Defendants.
Before: Jansen, P. J., and Reilly and E. Sosnick,* JJ
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by right the lower court’s denial of her motion for summary disposition and its
granting of defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We affirm.
Plaintiff argues that although she was not named as an insured party on the insurance contract
with defendant that covered her automobile, she should nevertheless be provided personal protection
insurance (PIP) benefits under that policy for injuries she sustained when she was involved in an
accident that did not involve her car. We disagree.
The availability of PIP benefits is controlled by MCL 500.3114; MSA 24.13114. Subsection
(2) is inapplicable because it pertains to accidents involving a motor vehicle operated in the business of
transporting passengers. Subsection (3) is inapplicable because it provides coverage when specified
persons are injured while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Subsection (4) merely prioritizes the liability of multiple insurers. Subsection (5) is inapplicable because
it pertains to accidents involving motorcycles.
Thus, the only subsection left that could provide coverage to plaintiff is subsection (1).
However, that subsection only entitles “the person named in the policy, the person’s spouse, and a
relative of either domiciled in the same household” to PIP benefits for injuries arising from a motor
vehicle accident. The record shows that the company owned by plaintiff’s father, American Masonry
Technology, Inc., was the only named insured on the policy issued by defendant. The plain language of
the statute mandates that plaintiff is not entitled to PIP benefits. Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co, 118
Mich App 594, 599-560; 325 NW2d 505 (1982). Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary
disposition in defendant’s favor.
Plaintiff in essence asks this Court to judicially construe § 3114 so that it will include the owner
of a car, insured in the name of a corporation, as a named insured in a policy covering the corporation.
However, this construction would contravene the statute as enacted by our Legislature. Where the
intent of the Legislature is plain from the language clearly expressed, such judicial construction is not
permitted. Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22, 27; 528 NW2d 681 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Edward Sosnick
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
