Michigan Supreme Court Holds Exclusive Vehicle Control Creates Ownership Under the No-Fault Act

Mohammed Abdulla v Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company

• Michigan Supreme Court

• MSC Opinion Issued: July 7, 2026

  • Unanimous Opinion by Zahra, J. (Before the Entire Bench)

• MSC Docket Nos. 167532, 167533

Holding: Plaintiff, a commercial truck driver, was excluded from recovering personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) because he was an “owner” of the tractor he was driving under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and did not maintain the security required by MCL 500.3101(1) at the time of the accident. As the sole member of the limited-liability company that held title to the tractor, plaintiff had the exclusive, unsupervised right to use, maintain, and make all decisions regarding the vehicle for more than 30 days, which comported with ownership under Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524 (2004), regardless of the fact that title was held by his single-member LLC. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that the record lacked sufficient indicia of ownership.

Facts: Plaintiff was injured when the tractor-trailer he was operating collided with another tractor-trailer in Missouri while he was hauling cargo from Michigan to Texas. The tractor was registered in Michigan and titled to Tornado Trucking, LLC, a single-member LLC wholly owned by plaintiff. The trailer was titled to Land Trucking, LLC, which leased Tornado Trucking's tractor under an independent contractor agreement giving plaintiff's company the right to make all crucial decisions regarding the tractor's operation and maintenance. Plaintiff was the only person who ever drove the tractor and stored it himself when not in use.

Tornado Trucking's bobtail policy with Great American excluded PIP coverage while the tractor was used for a lessee's business or to transport cargo. Land Trucking's Progressive Southeastern policy did not list the tractor as a covered vehicle and provided no PIP coverage. Plaintiff, who lived with his parents, was not a named insured and the tractor was not a covered vehicle under his father's Auto Club policy. Plaintiff sued all three insurers and later added the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF), each claiming priority to pay PIP benefits.

Auto Club moved for summary disposition, arguing plaintiff was an “owner” of the tractor under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and, having failed to insure it, was barred from all PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b). The trial court disagreed, denied Auto Club's motion, and granted summary disposition to Great American, the MAIPF, and Progressive Southeastern, finding Auto Club the highest-priority insurer. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record lacked sufficient indicia of ownership; Judge Jansen dissented, reasoning plaintiff was at least a co-owner. The Supreme Court ordered argument on the application.

Key Appellate Holding:

A person who has the exclusive, unsupervised right to use and control a vehicle for more than 30 days is an “owner” under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i), even where title is held by that person's single-member limited-liability company, and such a person is barred from PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) if that security is not maintained.

MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) defines “owner” to include a person “having the use of a motor vehicle, under a lease or otherwise, for a period that is greater than 30 days.” Under Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524, 530 (2004), the focus is on the nature of the person's right to use the vehicle, not merely actual use, and per Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 690-691 (1999), that use must be proprietary or possessory rather than merely incidental or permission-based. The Court held plaintiff met this standard: as the sole member and agent of Tornado Trucking, he operated the tractor regularly and exclusively for at least six months, made all decisions regarding its operation and upkeep without needing anyone's permission, and kept it in his own custody.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' focus on plaintiff's business (rather than personal) use of the tractor, holding the statute draws no such distinction. It likewise rejected reliance on Tornado Trucking's separate legal status: while LLCs are distinct legal entities, the no-fault act's broad, function-over-form definition of “owner” controls over general LLC statutes, and the act expressly contemplates multiple owners of a single vehicle. Because plaintiff exercised full, unsupervised control over the tractor for more than 30 days, he was an “owner” independent of Tornado Trucking's title — not by piercing the corporate veil, but by his own manner of use. Having failed to maintain the required no-fault security, plaintiff was barred from PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b).