Insurer wins appeal: injury victim's right to PIP benefits must be determined by jury
The trial court originally ruled that Jenne Ott was entitled to PIP benefits from Progressive Michigan Insurance Co., because Progressive had insured the vehicle in which she suffered injuries as a passenger. Progressive argued, however, that the woman who purchased its insurance policy might not have enjoyed an ownership interest in the car, and therefore Ott should collect PIP benefits from the Assigned Claims plan (because Progressive should be allowed to cancel the insurance).
Ott's application to Assigned Claims was turned over to Farm Bureau, which sided with Ott. The trial court ruled that Progressive owed benefits to Ott, however, the Appellate Court concluded that the lower court had relied upon the wrong legal precedent. It returned the case to the lower court for a jury decision with regard to whether Progressive's insured was actually an owner of the vehicle entitled to insure it.