Unlawful Taking – Michigan

Carlonda Naishe Swoope v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest
No. 364924, 2026 WL 1765948 (Mich. Ct. App. June 18, 2026)

The Michigan Court of Appeals, on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition and held that the plaintiff, Carlonda Naishe Swoope (Swoope), was barred from recovering Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) benefits under Michigan’s no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., specifically MCL 500.3113(a). The appellate court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Swoope knowingly took a friend’s vehicle without permission and, therefore, knew or should have known that the vehicle was taken unlawfully within the meaning of MCL 500.3113(a).

In October 2020, while staying with her friend, Kandice Valentine (Valentine), Swoope received a call from her mother, who indicated that her chest hurt and that the ambulance was not arriving soon enough. Without obtaining Valentine’s consent or permission, Swoope took Valentine’s car to drive to her mother’s home. Swoope had never operated Valentine’s vehicle before and did not have a valid driver’s license. While Swoope claimed she took the vehicle due to a family emergency, on the way to her mother’s home she stopped at Burger King. After leaving Burger King, Swoope was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently used a ride sharing service to travel to her mother’s home. Swoope later sought treatment for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. 

Swoope applied for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, and her claim was assigned to the defendant, Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest (Citizens). Citizens denied coverage and Swoope filed suit. Citizens moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing, among other things, that Swoope was not entitled to PIP benefits per MCL 500.3113(a) because she was unlawfully operating Valentine’s vehicle without a license. MCL 500.3113(a) provides that a person is not entitled to be paid PIP benefits for accidental bodily injury if, at the time of the accident, “[t]he person was willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and the person knew or should have known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully.” The trial court denied Citizens’ dispositive motion and motion for reconsideration, finding that a question of fact existed as to whether Swoope had permission to use Valentine’s vehicle.

The Michigan Court of Appeals granted Citizens’ application for leave to appeal. In its first opinion, the appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying Citizens’ dispositive motion, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Swoope was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a) because without a driver’s license she was “operating” Valentine’s vehicle unlawfully. Swoope appealed the appellate court’s decision.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the appellate court, ruling that the correct analysis when determining the applicability of MCL 500.3113(a) should not have been on whether the vehicle was “operated unlawfully” but instead whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” and whether Swoope knew or should have known that the vehicle was taken unlawfully.

On remand, the appellate court noted that the Supreme Court distinguished between situations in which the vehicle owner expressly prohibited the taking of their vehicle and situations in which there was no expressed prohibition, and for the latter, the analysis requires additional inquiry into the driver’s intentions at the time the vehicle was taken (i.e., examining the legality of the taking of the vehicle from the perspective of the driver). The appellate court concluded that, in this case, there was no question of fact that Swoope had knowingly taken Valentine’s vehicle unlawfully because Swoope admitted in her deposition that she had never used Valentine’s vehicle before, and she did not have Valentine’s permission to operate the vehicle at the time of the accident. 

The appellate court rejected Swoope’s argument that a question of fact existed as to whether she “reasonably believed” she could take the vehicle given her mother’s exigent telephone call and her friendship with Valentine. The appellate court noted that “reasonable belief” is no longer the governing standard under MCL 500.3113(a) as the Michigan Legislature removed that “safe-harbor provision” in the current version of the statute and replaced it with a scienter requirement under which a person is disqualified from obtaining PIP benefits if the person “knew or should have known” that the vehicle was taken unlawfully.

Accordingly, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in denying Citizens’ dispositive motion because the undisputed facts demonstrated that Swoope knowingly took Valentine’s vehicle without permission. Accordingly, she was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a). The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.

By: Amy Diviney