Can You Register A Car In Your Name If You Don't Own It

You can insure a machine you don't own in Michigan. The auto No-Fault police doesn't crave that machine insurance exist personally purchased by a vehicle's owner. If at that place's a valid No-Error policy on a vehicle – regardless of who bought it – then the owner will exist considered "insured" if injured in a car blow.

Why does this fifty-fifty matter? If a person is adamant to be "uninsured" (i.eastward., defective the machine insurance required by the car No-Fault law) at the fourth dimension of a motor vehicle accident, and so the consequences are farthermost. Nether Michigan'south auto police force, he or she loses all legal rights to receive No-Fault insurance benefits, and even the right to sue the wrongdoer driver who causes the crash for pain and suffering compensation and other economical damages.

As an auto accident and machine No-Fault insurance lawyer, I've been asked this question a number of times as auto insurance rates accept continued to climb. As No-Fault car insurance has become more and more than unaffordable for drivers, this question of whether someone tin can insure a car they don't ain has been asked with increased frequency. For many people who cannot afford to insure their own car, this is their only selection other than to drive illegally without whatever insurance. When this happens, they await to family, loved ones and friends for help with paying their vehicle insurance.

It's not uncommon for people to desire to endeavor to help by purchasing an auto insurance policy for someone who's struggling financially. The question is: tin can you lot do information technology? Can you insure a car you don't own?

Fortunately, the law allows people to insure another person's motorcar fifty-fifty if they do not own information technology. This serves public policy past protecting other innocent drivers on our roads and gives someone who may be struggling financially the peace of heed of knowing they will exist "insured" as required by the auto No-Fault law in this land if they're injured in a car blow. Being an owner that is covered means you volition receive No-Error benefits to pay for medical bills and lost wages. It besides means you retain the legal right to bring a lawsuit and to sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering compensation and other economic damages.

An uninsured driver is unable to collect car No-Error insurance benefits such equally medical bills and lost wages and is unable to sue an at-error driver for his or her injuries under Michigan'south auto law, even when the uninsured driver is 100% innocent of fault or wrongdoing for the collision and no matter how catastrophic his or her injuries may exist. Driving uninsured essentially gives an at-fault commuter amnesty for pain you.

Can you insure a auto that is not in your name in Michigan?

You can insure a car that is non in your ain name in Michigan. Michigan's motorcar No-Fault law requires that a vehicle's owner "maintain" No-Fault auto insurance on the vehicle. But information technology doesn't require that the policy be personally purchased by the possessor. Information technology can exist purchased by someone whose proper name is not on the title.

This important signal was clarified past the Michigan Supreme Courtroom in Dye v. Esurance (#155784, July eleven, 2019) where the justices held that a auto accident victim was "insured" as required by the No-Fault law by an automobile insurance policy purchased for his vehicle by a not-owner.

Specifically, the Dye ruling stated:

"We therefore hold that an owner or registrant of a motor vehicle involved in an accident is not excluded from receiving no-fault benefits when someone other than that owner or registrant purchased no-fault insurance for that vehicle because the owner or registrant of the vehicle may 'maintain' the insurance coverage required under the no-fault act even if he or she did not purchase the insurance."

Before Dye, Michigan courts had non fully understood the legal requirements of the No-Fault police in regards to insuring a machine you practice non own. Prior courtroom decisions were misinterpreting the police by holding that No-Error insurance policies were valid only if purchased or obtained by vehicle owners and that vehicle owners injured in a motor vehicle collision would exist accounted "uninsured" and, thus, ineligible for PIP benefits and injury compensation nether the No-Fault police force if the machine insurance policy covering their vehicle had been purchased by a non-owner.

This erroneous interpretation originated with the Michigan Court of Appeals in the 2014 published opinion in Barnes v. Farmers Insurance Substitution.

Because the Barnes dominion was "reverse to the obviously language of the no-fault act," the justices in Dye overruled Barnes.

NOTE: Just because a person's name is not on the title of a vehicle does not necessarily preclude him or her from being considered an "owner" of the vehicle. An "owner" for purposes of Michigan's No-Error law can be anyone who has "the employ of a motor vehicle . . . for a period that is greater than 30 days." (MCL 500.3101(3)(50)(i)

What do auto insurance companies think virtually policies being purchased by someone other than a vehicle's possessor?

When information technology comes to insuring a car for someone other than the vehicle'due south owner, insurance companies expect at this "non-owner' scenario as a win-win for them. One auto insurance company makes money by selling a policy that will potentially protect no ane and that will yield no claims. And some other insurance company would and then utilise the Barnes case I mentioned above to avoid having to pay No-Mistake benefits past challenge the victim was still "uninsured" and, thus, ineligible for No-Fault PIP benefits because the policy on his or her motorcar was purchased non by him or her – the vehicle's owner – but past a non-possessor.

Cheers to the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling in Dye, insurance companies can no longer practice this to people who were trying to fulfill the spirit, the intent, and the public policy behind why nosotros insure cars and other vehicles.

In improver to the portion of the ruling I quoted above, the justices in Dye too ruled:

"Considering MCL 500.3101(1) does not prescribe whatever detail manner by which no-fault insurance must be maintained, we will not read into the statute a requirement that the insurance be purchased or obtained by a vehicle'southward owner or registrant."
"[D]etermining whether no-fault benefits are bachelor to an injured person does not depend on 'who' purchased, obtained, or otherwise procured no-fault insurance."
"Thus, we conclude that the language of MCL 500.3101(one) does not require an owner or a registrant of a motor vehicle to personally obtain no-mistake insurance."

Significantly, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinforced its ruling in Dye by reversing two Michigan Courtroom of Appeals rulings that had relied on Barnes to deny No-Fault benefits to crash victims because the No-Fault automobile insurance policies covering their vehicles had been purchased not past themselves but by not-owners. (See Alani 5. GEICO (COA unpublished, i/30/2018, #334061)(reversed in an October 29, 2019, society by the Michigan Supreme Courtroom, #157368); Erika Easter v. Progressive Marathon (COA unpublished, 3/xx/2018, #335815)(reversed in a December xi, 2019, order by the Michigan Supreme Court, #157692))

Additionally, in Howard v. Progressive (COA unpublished, October 15, 2019, #343556), a case that was handed downward after Dye, the Michigan Court of Appeals relied on Dye to rule that "at that place is no merit in [the auto insurance company'due south] contention that [the crash victim] is barred from receiving no-fault benefits merely because his wife, Eula, purchased the no-error policy" on the vehicle owned by the collision victim.

UPDATE: On April 23, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a published opinion that you can insure a auto that you don't own in Michigan. In Memberselect five. Flesher (#348571), a unanimous panel of judges upheld the validity of an "auto liability insurance" policy that was purchased past the vehicle owner'south mother to cover the vehicle owned past her adult son – who did not live with her. Reasoning that the female parent had a "sufficient insurable involvement" in the "well-being of her adult kid," the courtroom explained that "the interest of a parent in an adult child'south welfare" includes "such aspects as being covered for potential injury, being protected from financial ruin from injuring another, even the avoidance of civil infraction or other legal penalties for driving while uninsured . . ."

How does an injured owner get No-Fault benefits if a non-owner purchased his vehicle's auto insurance?

This is a great question. The law as I've discussed above makes clear that a motor vehicle owner is "insured" at the time of a motorcar accident even if the automobile insurance policy covering his or her vehicle was purchased by a not-owner.

However, the fact that the vehicle owner is deemed covered for purposes of the No-Mistake law's mandatory insurance requirements does not answer the question of which motorcar insurance visitor is going to pay for his or her No-Mistake benefits.

That decision volition be made based on the No-Fault law'due south "priority" rules. Based on the "priority" rules, the injured owner's options would include (in the following order):

First – Filing a claim for No-Fault benefits through the machine insurance policy in which the injured owner's "spouse" is the "named insured." (MCL 500.3114(1))
Second – Filing a claim for No-Error benefits through the auto insurance policy in which the "named insured" is a "relative" of the injured owner who lives in the "same household" as the injured owner. (MCL 500.3114(ane))
Tertiary – Filing a claim for No-Fault benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. (MCL 500.3114(iv))

Ordinarily, the offset order of "priority" for a car accident victim to claim No-Fault benefits is the auto insurance policy in which he or she is "named" equally the "named insured." (MCL 500.3114(i)) But that is not possible when the policy covering an injured owner's vehicle was purchased past a non-owner because then the "named insured" on the policy will exist the non-owner. However, depending on the circumstances, the injured owner may exist able to merits nether the policy if the "named insured" is a spouse or a resident relative.

Need assist? Call Michigan Motorcar Law start

If you have been injured in a car blow and the insurance company is questioning whether y'all were insured because your policy was purchased by someone whose name is not on the vehicle'southward title, call toll free anytime 24/7 at (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with our experienced auto accident attorneys. Y'all tin also get help from an experienced machine accident attorney by visiting our contact page or yous can use the chat feature on our website.