Driving without a license is not enough to deny PIP benefits, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 10, 2026.
The court held that an unlicensed driver who was injured in a car accident cannot be barred from personal protection insurance benefits simply because she was driving without a valid license. The reason comes down to a single word in the statute: "taken".
In October 2020, Carlonda Naishe Swoope was staying overnight at her friend Kandice Valentine's home when her mother called the next morning to say her chest was hurting and the ambulance was not arriving fast enough. Swoope took Valentine's car keys and drove toward her mother's house without first obtaining Valentine's consent or permission. She had never driven Valentine's car before. Along the way, she was involved in a collision. She had no valid driver's license and no automobile insurance.
Swoope filed a claim for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, which assigned her case to Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest. The insurer denied coverage, arguing that Swoope's claim was barred under MCL 500.3113(a) because she had taken the vehicle unlawfully.
The trial court denied the insurer's motion for summary disposition. Citizens Insurance appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate panel reasoned that because Swoope was driving without a valid license – a criminal offense under the Michigan Vehicle Code – she was unlawfully operating the vehicle, and that alone was enough to disqualify her from PIP benefits. The panel also pointed to a footnote in a prior Court of Appeals decision, Ahmed v Tokio Marine America Ins Co, which had suggested that any criminal law violation leading to a taking of a motor vehicle would constitute an unlawful taking under the no-fault act.
The Supreme Court disagreed with that reasoning entirely. Writing for the full bench, Justice Kyra H. Bolden explained that MCL 500.3113(a) bars PIP benefits when a person was willingly operating or willingly using a vehicle that was taken unlawfully and the person knew or should have known it was taken unlawfully. The operative phrase, the court stressed, is "taken unlawfully" – and taking a vehicle is not the same thing as driving it.
The court traced this distinction through two of its own earlier decisions. In Spectrum Health, decided in 2012, the court held that a vehicle is taken unlawfully when someone gains possession of it contrary to Michigan law, such as when a vehicle owner has expressly forbidden another person from using it. In Rambin, decided in 2014, the court added that the driver's intent at the time of the taking matters and that a driver is entitled to present evidence that they believed they had authority to take the vehicle.
Both of those cases interpreted an earlier version of MCL 500.3113(a), which the Legislature amended in 2014. The current version changed the statute in two ways: it replaced the word "using" with "willingly operating or willingly using," and it swapped a safe harbor for those who reasonably believed they were entitled to take the vehicle with a disqualification for those who knew or should have known the vehicle was taken unlawfully. But the phrase "taken unlawfully" was left untouched.
The court noted that when the Legislature retains language that has already been interpreted by the courts, it is presumed to have kept the established meaning intact.
The upshot for insurers is straightforward. When evaluating whether MCL 500.3113(a) bars a PIP claim, the focus must be on how the claimant came into possession of the vehicle – not on whether they had a license or were otherwise legally permitted to drive. A claimant who drives without a license is operating the vehicle unlawfully, but that does not automatically mean they took it unlawfully. The two concepts, the court made clear, are not interchangeable.
The court also found that Ahmed was wrongly decided to the extent it concluded otherwise, removing a line of reasoning that had been used to deny PIP claims on the basis of unlawful operation rather than unlawful taking.
The case is not fully resolved. The Supreme Court remanded it to the Court of Appeals to address a question it had inadequately considered: whether Swoope's act of taking Valentine's car without permission actually constituted an unlawful taking. The appellate panel had noted in passing that Swoope admitted she took no steps to ensure that Valentine authorized the taking of the vehicle, but it never reached a conclusion on that point. That question now becomes the central issue on remand.
For Michigan auto insurers and claims professionals, the decision clarifies that the statutory bar under MCL 500.3113(a) hinges on how a claimant obtained the vehicle – not on whether the person behind the wheel was legally permitted to drive.
