Abdulla v Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company
Key claim: The Michigan Supreme Court held that a sole-member LLC owner who exclusively operated and controlled the LLC’s tractor for more than 30 days qualifies as an ‘owner’ under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and is therefore barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) for failing to maintain required no-fault coverage.
Abstract
Michigan Supreme Court opinion decided 2026-07-07. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions: prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kimberly K. Muschong
ABDULLA v PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket Nos. 167532 and 167533. Argued on application for leave to appeal April 8, 2026.
Decided July 7, 2026.
Mohammed Abdulla brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Progressive
Southeastern Insurance Company, Auto Club Group Insurance Company, and Great American
Insurance Company, seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits under the no-fault act,
MCL 500.3101 et seq., for injuries he suffered when the tractor-trailer he was operating collided
with another tractor-trailer in Missouri. The tractor was registered in Michigan, and the title was
issued to Tornado Trucking, LLC, a limited-liability company solely owned by plaintiff. The title
for the trailer was issued to Land Trucking, LLC. Under a lease agreement, Land Trucking leased
Tornado Trucking’s tractor and Tornado Trucking transported cargo for Land Trucking. Tornado
Trucking held a Michigan “bobtail” insurance policy with Great American Insurance Company
that provided certain coverage for the tractor but excluded coverage for PIP benefits if the vehicle
was being used in the business of a lessee or to transport cargo. Land Trucking had an insurance
policy with Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company that provided certain coverage for their
company-owned motor vehicles and trailers, but it did not provide PIP coverage. At the time of
the accident, plaintiff lived with his parents in Michigan, and his father had a no-fault insurance
policy through Auto Club Group Insurance Company, but that policy did not list plaintiff as a
named insured and did not list the tractor as a covered vehicle. After the accident, plaintiff sued
Progressive Southeastern, Auto Club, and Great American, alleging that one of these insurers was
first in priority to provide PIP benefits under the no-fault act. Plaintiff later amended his complaint
to add the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF) as a defendant. Auto
Club moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that plaintiff was an
“owner” of the tractor, as defined in MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i), and was therefore not entitled to PIP
benefits from any insurer under MCL 500.3113(b) because he failed to maintain PIP coverage on
the tractor as required under MCL 500.3101(1). The trial court, Dana M. Hathaway, J., denied
Auto Club’s motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition in favor of Great
American, the MAIPF, and Progressive Southeastern. Auto Club filed interlocutory applications
for leave to appeal both orders. After granting both applications and consolidating the appeals,
the Court of Appeals, REDFORD and D. H. SAWYER, JJ. (JANSEN, P.J., dissenting), affirmed,
holding that, because the record lacked sufficient indicia of plaintiff’s ownership of the tractor to
conclude that he was either an owner or the registrant of the tractor for purposes of MCL
500.3101(3) and MCL 500.3113(b), the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff’s claim for PIP
benefits was not barred by MCL 500.3113(b) and that Auto Club was the highest priority insurer. ___ Mich App ___ (July 25, 2024) (Docket Nos. 364797 and 364866). Auto Club sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered and heard oral argument on the application. ___ Mich ___; 20 NW3d 564 (2025).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice ZAHRA, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, held:
Plaintiff was excluded from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113 because he was
an owner of the vehicle and did not have the security required by MCL 500.3101(1) at the time of the accident. MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) defines “owner,” in pertinent part, as a person “having the use of a motor vehicle, under a lease or otherwise, for a period that is greater than 30 days.” In this case, plaintiff had the use of the tractor “under a lease or otherwise” for more than 30 days. Under Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524, 530 (2004), when determining ownership of a vehicle for purposes of the no-fault act, the focus must be on the nature of the person’s right to use the vehicle. As the sole member and agent of Tornado Trucking, plaintiff operated the tractor regularly and exclusively for at least six months before the accident, he was the sole decisionmaker as to its operation and upkeep, he did not need anyone’s permission to use it, and he kept it in his custody. These facts demonstrated that plaintiff had the right to use the tractor in a manner that comported with ownership for a period of 30 days or more. This conclusion did not require piercing the corporate veil of Tornado Trucking but rather harmonizing the statutes governing limited-liability companies with the no-fault act, which contemplates that there may be more than one owner of a vehicle and whose definition of “owner” is controlling.
Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
OPINION Chief Justice: Justices: Megan K. Cavanagh Brian K. Zahra Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden Kimberly A. Thomas Noah P. Hood
FILED July 7, 2026
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED ABDULLA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
PRECISE MRI OF MICHIGAN, LLC,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,
v Nos. 167532-3
PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN,
Defendants,
and
AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
PLACEMENT FACILITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
ZAHRA, J. Plaintiff, Mohammed Abdulla, is a commercial truck driver who was injured while
operating a tracto
Why this matters
The Michigan Supreme Court held that a sole-member LLC owner who exclusively operated and controlled the LLC’s tractor for more than 30 days qualifies as an ‘owner’ under MCL 500.3101(3)(l)(i) and is therefore barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(b) for failing to maintain required no-fault coverage.