Duncan v. Repwest Insurance Company et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting Defendant U-Haul Company of Arizona's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RYAN DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-14001
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
REPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U-HAUL COMPANY OF ARIZONA’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #23)
This is an insurance coverage dispute. On or about June 15, 2014, Plaintiff
Ryan Duncan (“Duncan”) rented a truck (the “Truck”) from U-Haul Moving &
Storage in Taylor, Michigan. (See the “Rental Agreement,” ECF #23-2.) The
Truck was owned by Defendant U-Haul Company of Arizona (“U-Haul”) and was
registered in Arizona.

(See Affidavit for Jason Turcotte, ECF #23-4 at ¶2.)

Duncan rented the Truck in order to travel to Florida. (See Rental Agreement at 1.
See also the “Response,” ECF #25.) Duncan alleges that he sustained injuries in
an accident on June 18, 2014, while driving the Truck in Tennessee. (See the
Amended Complaint, ECF #12 at ¶11.)

1

In this action, Duncan seeks insurance benefits from U-Haul under the
Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (the “No-Fault Act”), M.C.L. §
500.3101, et seq. (See id. at ¶¶6-18.) U-Haul has now moved for summary
judgment on the ground that the Truck is not subject to the No-Fault Act. (See the
“Motion,” ECF #23.)

The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For
the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS U-Haul’s Motion.
A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact....” U.S. SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Services,
Inc., 712 F.3d 321, 326–27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)) (quotations omitted). “The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be
insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for
[that party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. However, summary judgment is not
appropriate when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury.” Id. at 251-252. When reviewing the record, “the court must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in its favor.” Id.
The No-Fault Act provides that the owner of a motor vehicle registered in
Michigan must maintain personal protection insurance coverage for the vehicle.
2

See M.C.L. § 500.3101(1). The No-Fault Act does not require the owner of a
vehicle not registered in Michigan to maintain insurance coverage unless the
vehicle is “operated in [Michigan] for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any
calendar year.” M.C.L. § 500.3102(1). U-Haul has presented evidence that the
Truck (1) was not registered in Michigan, and (2) was not operated in Michigan for
an aggregate of more than 30 days in 2014, the year of Duncan’s accident. (See
Turcotte Aff. at ¶¶2-4.

See also Rental Transaction History, ECF #23-5.)

Accordingly, U-Haul argues that the No-Fault Act does not apply to the Truck.
In response to U-Haul’s Motion, Duncan candidly admits that U-Haul was
not required to maintain insurance coverage on the Truck pursuant to the No-Fault
Act because the Truck “was not in Michigan for the 30 days within 2014 as
required by M.C.L. § 500.3102.” (Resp. at 4.) Nonetheless, Duncan opposes the
Motion because, in his view, U-Haul “is attempting to avoid liability for payment
of Michigan No-Fault benefits” by renting out-of-state vehicles in Michigan for
fewer than 30 days per year. (Resp. at 1, 3-4.) Accordingly, Duncan urges the
Court to deny U-Haul’s Motion “in the interest of public policy.” (Resp. at 2.)
This Court lacks authority to ignore the clear legislative mandate of the NoFault Act. See, e.g., Kelly Services v. Eidnes, 530 F.Supp.2d 940, 952 (E.D. Mich.
2008) (court “cannot ignore the law”). As Duncan has properly conceded, the NoFault Act did not require U-Haul to maintain no-fault insurance coverage on the
3

Truck. Accordingly, the No-Fault Act does not provide a basis for Duncan’s
requested relief against U-Haul. The Court “cannot rewrite the statute to be what it
is not.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. V. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2651 (2012)
(Scalia, J., dissenting). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that U-Haul’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #24) is GRANTED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 23, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 23, 2015, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4