When a vehicle’s owner neither expressly permitted nor expressly prohibited the claimant from taking the vehicle, whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” under MCL 500.3113(a) depends on whether the driver took it with the owner’s implied permission. That determination turns on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the taking, as well as the driver’s previous use of the vehicle.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.