Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114 (2026)

Persons entitled to personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits; order of priority for claim of motor vehicle occupant or motorcycle operator or passenger; assigned claims plan; 2 or more insurers in same order of priority; partial recoupment; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956

Act 218 of 1956

500.3114 Persons entitled to personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits; order of priority for claim of motor vehicle occupant or motorcycle operator or passenger; assigned claims plan; 2 or more insurers in same order of priority; partial recoupment; definitions.

Sec. 3114.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (5), a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident. A personal injury insurance policy described in section 3103(2) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motorcycle accident. If personal protection insurance benefits or personal injury benefits described in section 3103(2) are payable to or for the benefit of an injured person under his or her own policy and would also be payable under the policy of his or her spouse, relative, or relative's spouse, the injured person's insurer shall pay all of the benefits up to the coverage level applicable under section 3107c to the injured person's policy, and is not entitled to recoupment from the other insurer.

(2) A person who suffers accidental bodily injury while an operator or a passenger of a motor vehicle operated in the business of transporting passengers shall receive the personal protection insurance benefits to which the person is entitled from the insurer of the motor vehicle. This subsection does not apply to a passenger in any of the following, unless the passenger is not entitled to personal protection insurance benefits under any other policy:

(a) A school bus, as defined by the department of education, providing transportation not prohibited by law.

(b) A bus operated by a common carrier of passengers certified by the department of transportation.

(d) A bus operated by or providing service to a nonprofit organization.

(e) A taxicab insured as prescribed in section 3101 or 3102.

(f) A bus operated by a canoe or other watercraft, bicycle, or horse livery used only to transport passengers to or from a destination point.

(g) A transportation network company vehicle.

(h) A motor vehicle insured under a policy for which the person named in the policy has elected to not maintain coverage for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107d or as to which an exclusion under section 3109a(2) applies.

(3) An employee, his or her spouse, or a relative of either domiciled in the same household, who suffers accidental bodily injury while an occupant of a motor vehicle owned or registered by the employer, shall receive personal protection insurance benefits to which the employee is entitled from the insurer of the furnished vehicle.

(4) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), a person who suffers accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident while an occupant of a motor vehicle who is not covered under a personal protection insurance policy as provided in subsection (1) shall claim personal protection insurance benefits under the assigned claims plan under sections 3171 to 3175. This subsection does not apply to a person insured under a policy for which the person named in the policy has elected to not maintain coverage for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107d or as to which an exclusion under section 3109(2) applies, or who is not entitled to be paid personal protection benefits under section 3107d(6)(c) or 3109a(2)(d)(ii).

(5) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), a person who suffers accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident that shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority:

(a) The insurer of the owner or registrant of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

(b) The insurer of the operator of the motor vehicle involved in the accident.

(d) The motor vehicle insurer of the owner or registrant of the motorcycle involved in the accident.

(6) If an applicable insurance policy in an order of priority under subsection (5) is a policy for which the person named in the policy has elected to not maintain coverage for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107d, or as to which an exclusion under section 3109(2) applies, the injured person shall claim benefits only under other policies, subject to subsection (7), in the same order of priority for which no such election has been made. If there are no other policies for which no such election has been made, the injured person shall claim benefits under the next order of priority or, if there is not a next order of priority, under the assigned claims plan under sections 3171 to 3175.

(7) If personal protection insurance benefits are payable under subsection (5) under 2 or more insurance policies in the same order of priority, the benefits are only payable up to an aggregate coverage limit that equals the highest available coverage limit under any 1 of the policies.

(8) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), if 2 or more insurers are in the same order of priority to provide personal protection insurance benefits under subsection (5), an insurer that pays benefits due is entitled to partial recoupment from the other insurers in the same order of priority, and a reasonable amount of partial recoupment of the expense of processing the claim, in order to accomplish equitable distribution of the loss among all of the insurers.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) "Personal vehicle", "transportation network company digital network", and "transportation network company prearranged ride" mean those terms as defined in section 2 of the limousine, taxicab, and transportation network company act, 2016 PA 345, MCL 257.2102.

(b) "Transportation network company vehicle" means a personal vehicle while the driver is logged on to the transportation network company digital network or while the driver is engaged in a transportation network company prearranged ride.

History: Add. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 137, Imd. Eff. July 3, 1975 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 356, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1976 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 53, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1977 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 445, Imd. Eff. Jan. 15, 1981 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 372, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 1984 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 38, Imd. Eff. Mar. 7, 2002 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 347, Eff. Mar. 21, 2017 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019

Compiler's Notes:

In subsections (4) and (6), the reference to "section 3109(2)" evidently should read "section 3109a(2)."

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 519 cases (138 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 94× “3115(2), because Josalyn was domiciled in both parents’ homes under MCL 500.3114(1). Farm Bureau filed a counterclaim and both insurers filed motions for summary disposition.”

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 52× “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Malek Hmeidan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 928 N.W.2d 258 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 43× “3114(5)(d), then State Farm could potentially be liable under MCL 500.3114(1) (resident relative), the trial court responded that State Farm could not be liable because Progressive was higher in the order of priority.”

Corwin v. DaimlerChrysler Ins., 819 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 23× “MCL 500.3114 specifically refers to the person named in the *252 policy.”

Lewis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 888 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 20× “The basis of her claim was that, under the terms of Gordon’s policy and MCL 500.3114(1), which provides that PIP benefits can be recovered by “the person named in the policy” or “a relative .”

Titan Ins. v. Am. Country Ins., 876 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 21× “American Country then appealed in the circuit court, which affirmed the district court’s holding. American Country moved for reconsideration, which the court denied.”

Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins., 740 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 20× “1 In Belcher, supra at 251-252 , our Supreme Court indicated that MCL 500.3114 and its counterpart, MCL 500.”

Stone v. Auto-Owners Ins., 858 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendant had accepted premiums from John and Linda and knew that Stephanie did not live with them. The trial court later denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration.”

Meemic Ins. Co. v. Louise M Fortson, 922 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “See MCL 500.3114(1). The mere fact that fraud arose in connection with attendant-care-services forms submitted after Justin made his claim simply has no bearing as to whether there was a valid policy in effect at the time he made his claim.”

Shinn v. Michigan Assigned Claims Facility, 887 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “However, we agree with ACIC’s argument that it was nevertheless entitled to summary disposition on the basis of MCL 500.3114, which governs the priority of insurer responsibility for PIP benefits.”

Harris v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 835 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 21× “”3 However, MCL 500.3114 provides in relevant part: (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection…”

Besic v. Citizens Ins., 800 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “V REIMBURSEMENT FOR PIP BENEFITS PAID BY CLEARWATER Clearwater lastly avers that pursuant to MCL 500.3114, Citizens, the insurer of Besic’s personal vehicles, shares responsibility to pay Besic’s no-fault PIP benefits.”

Show all 519 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(1) — 292 cases

Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013). “3115(2), because Josalyn was domiciled in both parents’ homes under MCL 500.3114(1). Farm Bureau filed a counterclaim and both insurers filed motions for summary disposition.”

Lewis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 888 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “The basis of her claim was that, under the terms of Gordon’s policy and MCL 500.3114(1), which provides that PIP benefits can be recovered by “the person named in the policy” or “a relative .”

Corwin v. DaimlerChrysler Ins., 819 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “MCL 500.3114 specifically refers to the person named in the *252 policy.”

Meemic Ins. Co. v. Louise M Fortson, 922 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “See MCL 500.3114(1). The mere fact that fraud arose in connection with attendant-care-services forms submitted after Justin made his claim simply has no bearing as to whether there was a valid policy in effect at the time he made his claim.”

Stone v. Auto-Owners Ins., 858 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that defendant had accepted premiums from John and Linda and knew that Stephanie did not live with them. The trial court later denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2) — 71 cases

USAA Ins. v. Houston Gen. Ins., 559 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Titan Ins. v. Am. Country Ins., 876 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “American Country then appealed in the circuit court, which affirmed the district court’s holding. American Country moved for reconsideration, which the court denied.”

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. AAA of Michigan, 671 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Ottenwess v. Hawkeye Sec. Ins., 269 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2)(a) — 3 cases

Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Grp., 455 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. AAA of Michigan, 671 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Mic Gen. Ins. Corp v. Mi Mun. Risk Mgt Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2)(b) — 1 case

William Ahee v. City of Novi (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2)(c) — 5 cases

Mic Gen. Ins. Corp v. Mi Mun. Risk Mgt Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Michigan Mun. League Liab. & Prop. Pool v. Farmers Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Smart v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

William Ahee v. City of Novi (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2)(d) — 5 cases

USAA Ins. v. Houston Gen. Ins., 559 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

William Ahee v. City of Novi (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Mic Gen. Ins. Corp v. Mi Mun. Risk Mgt Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Ana Maria Sandoval v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Ana Maria Sandoval v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2)(g) — 2 cases

William Ahee v. City of Novi (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(2Xa) — 1 case

Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Grp., 455 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(3) — 108 cases

Besic v. Citizens Ins., 800 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “V REIMBURSEMENT FOR PIP BENEFITS PAID BY CLEARWATER Clearwater lastly avers that pursuant to MCL 500.3114, Citizens, the insurer of Besic’s personal vehicles, shares responsibility to pay Besic’s no-fault PIP benefits.”

Great Am. Ins. v. Queen, 300 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. 1980).

Hathcox v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 282 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Adanalic v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., 870 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(3)(l)(i) — 2 cases

Amber Marie Abraham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(4) — 117 cases

Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins., 740 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “1 In Belcher, supra at 251-252 , our Supreme Court indicated that MCL 500.3114 and its counterpart, MCL 500.”

Workman v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 274 N.W.2d 373 (Mich. 1979).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(4)(1) — 2 cases

Auto. Club Ins Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins Co (Mich. 2013).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(4)(a) — 47 cases

Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins., 740 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “1 In Belcher, supra at 251-252 , our Supreme Court indicated that MCL 500.3114 and its counterpart, MCL 500.”

Shinn v. Michigan Assigned Claims Facility, 887 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “However, we agree with ACIC’s argument that it was nevertheless entitled to summary disposition on the basis of MCL 500.3114, which governs the priority of insurer responsibility for PIP benefits.”

Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Sec. Ins., 502 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. 1993).

Amerisure Ins. v. Plumb, 766 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

Se. Michigan Surgical Hosp., LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 892 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(4)(b) — 15 cases

Amerisure Ins. v. Coleman, 733 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins., 740 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “1 In Belcher, supra at 251-252 , our Supreme Court indicated that MCL 500.3114 and its counterpart, MCL 500.”

Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 733 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Michigan v. Robert Elzer (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5) — 72 cases

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Malek Hmeidan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 928 N.W.2d 258 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “3114(5)(d), then State Farm could potentially be liable under MCL 500.3114(1) (resident relative), the trial court responded that State Farm could not be liable because Progressive was higher in the order of priority.”

Frierson v. West Am. Ins., 683 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 671 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

AMY v. MIC Gen. Ins., 670 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5)(a) — 35 cases

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Harris v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 835 N.W.2d 356 (Mich. 2013). “”3 However, MCL 500.3114 provides in relevant part: (5) A person suffering accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which shows evidence of the involvement of a motor vehicle while an operator or passenger of a motorcycle shall claim personal protection…”

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. FARM BUREAU GEN. INS. CO., 731 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. 2007).

AMY v. MIC Gen. Ins., 670 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5)(b) — 4 cases

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Denis Prishtina v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Enhance Ctr. for Interventional Spine & Sports v. Allstate Ins (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5)(c) — 7 cases

Katinsky v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 505 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Thomas Tarhanich v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Thomas J Maher v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5)(d) — 2 cases

Titan Ins. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 817 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(5)(e) — 1 case

Rambin v. Allstate Ins., 825 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(6) — 25 cases

Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 724 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “3115(2) almost verbatim in the context of MCL 500.3114 and codified it as MCL 500.3114(6).”

Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 919 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 2018).

AMY v. MIC Gen. Ins., 670 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 442 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

Universal Underwriters Grp. v. Allstate Ins., 635 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(7) — 4 cases

Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Thomas Tarhanich v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Thomas J Maher v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Graziella Bruner v. Alisha Danielle Caldwell (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(7)(b) — 1 case

William Ahee v. City of Novi (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(8) — 4 cases

Mary Free Bed Rehab. Hosp v. Esurance Prop. & Cas. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Esurance Prop & Cas. Ins Co v. Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (Mich. 2021).

Haris Alesevic v. Russell Gordon (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(b) — 1 case

Dobbelaere v. Auto-Owners Ins., 740 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “1 In Belcher, supra at 251-252 , our Supreme Court indicated that MCL 500.3114 and its counterpart, MCL 500.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3114(c) — 2 cases

Mic Gen. Ins. Corp v. Mi Mun. Risk Mgt Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.