Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3173 (2026)

Certain persons disqualified from receiving benefits under assigned claims plans.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


500.3173 Certain persons disqualified from receiving benefits under assigned claims plans.

Sec. 3173.

    A person who because of a limitation or exclusion in sections 3105 to 3116 is disqualified from receiving personal protection insurance benefits under a policy otherwise applying to his accidental bodily injury is also disqualified from receiving benefits under the assigned claims plan.

History: Add. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Botsford Gen. Hosp. v. Citizens Ins., 489 N.W.2d 137 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Botsford Gen. Hosp. v. Citizens Ins., 489 N.W.2d 137 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “13113(b) and MCL 500.3173; MSA 24.13173. During the investigation conducted by Dena Hendon of the assigned claims facility, Mary Noel advised Hendon that the vehicle had been purchased by plaintiff shortly before the accident.”
Belcher v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 293 N.W.2d 594 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 3× “MCL 500.3173; MSA 24.13173. In the Shaffer case, had the deceased injured person survived, he could not have qualified to receive benefits from appellee Riverside because of the § 3113(b) exclusion.”
Gutierrez v. Dairyland Ins., 312 N.W.2d 187 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “If a causal connection is established, and if none of the exceptions apply, the *137 injured party has not, as a matter of law, suffered "accidental bodily injury” and cannot recover personal protection insurance benefits for such bodily injury from any no-fault insurer.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. FARM BUREAU GEN. INS. CO., 731 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 3× “3113(b) [5] and MCL 500.3173 [6] link insurance *761 coverage to the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident and specifically exclude from coverage persons who have failed to obtain a no-fault policy for their vehicle or who have failed to pay the insurance premiums for…”
Belcher v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 268 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “MCL 500.3173; MSA 24.13173. The defendant relies solely upon the exclusion contained in § 3113(b).”
Cooper v. Jenkins, 766 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “3113(b); MCL 500.3173; Belcher v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 409 Mich 231, 261 ; 293 NW2d 594 (1980).”
Titan Ins. Co. v. Am. Country Ins., 879 N.W.2d 258 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 4× “3113(b) 1 and MCL 500.3173 2 of the no-fault act connect insurance coverage to the vehicle involved in the accident and specifically exclude from coverage persons who have failed to obtain a no-fault policy for that vehicle.”
Orlando Scott v. Michigan Auto. Ins. Placement Facility, No. 358882 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2022). · cites it 3× “See MCL 500.3173 (stating that a person who falls within a limitation or exclusion under MCL 500.”
Joseph Davis Sr v. Metlife Ins. Co., No. 359313 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2023). · cites it 3× “Finally, plaintiff Davis and intervening plaintiff are barred from recovering no-fault insurance benefits through defendant MAIPF under MCL 500.3173. MCL 500.3173 provides: A person who because of a limitation or exclusion in sections 3105 to 3116 .”
Sakhar Algaheim v. Michigan Auto Ins. Placement Facility, No. 362346 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2023). · cites it 3× “3113, he was not entitled to benefits from the assigned claims plan by operation of MCL 500.3173. The trial court granted USA Underwriters’s motion, concluding that plaintiff was excluded from coverage under the policy and the no-fault act.”
Am. Physio LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., No. 367918 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2024). · cites it 3× “Patel 10 American Physio also argues that the trial court improperly relied on MCL 500.3173 when granting summary disposition in favor of Nationwide.”
Titan Ins. Co. v. Am. Country Ins., No. 152492 (Mich. May 27, 2016). · cites it 2× “3113(b) 1 and MCL 500.3173 2 of the no-fault act connect insurance coverage to the vehicle involved in the accident and specifically exclude from coverage persons who have failed to obtain a no-fault policy for that vehicle.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3173(4): 1 case
Oliver Bakeman v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 998 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3173(a): 1 case
Orlando Scott v. Michigan Auto. Ins. Placement Facility, No. 358882 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2022). “See MCL 500.3173 (stating that a person who falls within a limitation or exclusion under MCL 500.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3173(a)(2): 1 case
Kalvin Candler v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Michigan, No. 332998 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2017).
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.