COA 373476 TERMAINE TURNER V ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 2/18/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
TERMAINE TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
February 18, 2026
9:43 AM
v No. 373476
Wayne Circuit Court
ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
LC No. 23-015201-NF
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FEENEY, P.J., and GARRETT and BAZZI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Termaine Turner, sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from
defendant, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (Acceptance), following a motor-vehicle
accident. Acceptance denied Turner’s claim on the basis that he was not driving the vehicle
covered under the policy when the accident occurred. The trial court agreed with Acceptance and
granted summary disposition in its favor. Turner appeals by right the trial court’s order. We
reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Turner was involved in a motor-vehicle accident on May 26, 2021, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
At the time of the accident, Turner was driving a 2006 Nissan Altima that a friend of his children’s
mother owned. Turner was injured in the accident and transported to the hospital. He claimed PIP
benefits from USA Underwriters, which insured a 2014 Chevy Cruze that he owned, but USA
Underwriters had canceled the policy before the accident because Turner failed to pay the
premium. Turned filed a lawsuit against USA Underwriters, which culminated in this Court’s
determination that USA Underwriters’s notice of cancellation of the policy was unconditional,
precluding PIP benefits. Turner v USA Underwriters, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court
of Appeals, issued December 14, 2023 (Docket No. 363280), pp 2-4.
Meanwhile, Turner filed the instant action for PIP benefits against Acceptance, the insurer
of his 2008 Peterbilt tractor that he used for work. Turner’s policy with Acceptance covering the

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
tractor was a non-trucking liability automobile policy, or “bobtail” policy.1 The certificate of
insurance included in the policy stated that the policy coverages, including PIP coverage, applied
“only to the Specified ‘Auto’ or ‘Autos’ below,” and only the 2008 Peterbilt tractor was listed.
The policy also described a “Covered Auto” as “[o]nly those ‘autos’ ” listed on the certificate.
Acceptance moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that
bobtail policies provide coverage for an insured while the insured is driving the covered auto for
personal use. Acceptance asserted that Turner’s policy did not provide coverage while Turner was
driving a non-covered auto such as the vehicle involved in the accident. Relying on the language
of the policy, Acceptance argued that only the Peterbilt tractor was listed as a specified, covered
auto and that Turner testified he purchased the tractor for work purposes. According to
Acceptance, the clear language of the policy afforded coverage only when Turner drove the tractor
for personal use because the policy specified that the tractor was the only auto covered and it
excluded coverage when the tractor was used for business purposes. Acceptance relied on Alesevic
v Gordon, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 30, 2022 (Docket
No. 358507), which it claimed involved the same policy at issue in this case.
In response, Turner argued that no-fault coverage in Michigan is linked to the individual
and not the vehicle, and Acceptance could not limit statutorily-required PIP coverage to the use of
certain vehicles as this Court determined in MemberSelect Ins Co v Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Co, 343 Mich App 377; 997 NW2d 267 (2022). Turner distinguished Alesevic on the basis that
the plaintiff in that case was a named insured on a different policy and was not without PIP
coverage, while Acceptance was Turner’s sole PIP carrier, and MCL 500.3114(1) required him to
seek benefits from Acceptance. Further, he maintained that even if Acceptance could limit PIP
benefits to accidents involving the insured vehicle, the PIP endorsement did not so limit PIP
coverage or, at a minimum, the policy was ambiguous.
Acceptance filed a reply brief, arguing that non-trucking policies do not simply “opt out”
of PIP coverage, but rather, they exclude PIP coverage in circumstances not applicable to the
limited purpose of the policy, and courts have long recognized the exclusion in such policies.
Acceptance emphasized the limited purpose of a non-trucking policy—to provide coverage only
when the tractor is being driven without a trailer, or with an empty trailer, for personal use and not
for business purposes. Interpreting the policy under contract-interpretation principles, Acceptance
maintained that it did not provide coverage in the scenario presented in this case. Further,
Acceptance asserted that Turner “contracted for a specific-use insurance policy” that limited
coverage to his operation of the tractor for personal use.
The trial court determined that Turner’s non-trucking policy was a specific, limited policy
that provided PIP coverage only when he drove the tractor for non-business purposes. The court
opined that Turner was “supposed to get the PIP” from USA Underwriters, which insured his
Chevy Cruze, but he allowed that insurance to lapse and instead tried to expand his policy with
Acceptance to provide PIP benefits notwithstanding that the accident did not involve the Peterbilt
1 “Generally, a ‘bobtail’ policy is a policy that insures the tractor and driver of a rig when it is
operated without cargo or a trailer.” Besic v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest, 290 Mich App 19, 22
n 1; 800 NW2d 93 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
tractor. The court determined that only the tractor was a covered auto under the Acceptance policy,
and the policy provided PIP coverage only if the accident involved the tractor. The court rejected
Turner’s argument that the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., prohibited Acceptance from
limiting PIP coverage to certain vehicles. The court therefore granted Acceptance’s motion for
summary disposition.
Turner moved for reconsideration, arguing that Acceptance could not limit PIP coverage
simply because the policy was a non-trucking policy, and the language of the PIP endorsement,
which he claimed provided coverage, prevailed over the policy’s general provisions. The trial
court denied the motion, stating that the policy restricted PIP coverage to “a particular commercial
vehicle” when that vehicle was operated for personal use, which the court opined did not
contravene Michigan no-fault or contractual law. The court stated that the plain language of the
endorsement applied only to the “covered auto”—the Peterbilt tractor—and “coverage simply does
not apply.” The court further stated that “insurers can sell insurance policies that do not include
mandatory no-fault coverages.” This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo issues involving statutory interpretation. Jostock v Mayfield Twp, 513
Mich 360, 368; 15 NW3d 552 (2024). We also review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion
for summary disposition. Healing Place at North Oakland Med Ctr v Allstate Ins Co, 277 Mich
App 51, 55; 744 NW2d 174 (2007). Acceptance moved for summary disposition under both MCR
2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), and the trial court did not indicate on which provision it relied in granting
Acceptance’s motion. Because the court relied on evidence outside the pleadings, however, review
is appropriate under subrule (C)(10). “Where the parties rely on documentary evidence, appellate
courts proceed under the standards of review applicable to a motion made under MCR
2.116(C)(10).” Id.
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Johnson v Vanderkooi, 502 Mich 751, 761; 918 NW2d 785 (2018). In deciding a motion under
subrule (C)(10), a court considers the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hanlin v Saugatuck Twp, 299 Mich App 233, 239;
829 NW2d 335 (2013). Summary disposition is appropriate if the evidence fails to establish a
genuine issue of material fact for trial, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Houston v Mint Group, LLC, 335 Mich App 545, 557; 968 NW2d 9 (2021). “A genuine
issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing
party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” Id. (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Under the no-fault act, PIP coverage is mandatory. Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich
287, 298; 954 NW2d 115 (2020). MCL 500.3101(1) states that “the owner or registrant of a motor
vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under
personal protection insurance . . . .” MCL 500.3105(1) requires an insurer to pay PIP benefits “for
accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor
vehicle as a motor vehicle . . . .” In addition, MCL 500.3114(1) provides that a PIP policy
“described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
policy . . . if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident.” (Emphasis added). Because PIP
coverage is mandatory, the statute is the “rule book” for courts deciding issues involving such
coverage. Meemic, 506 Mich at 298 (citation omitted). “When a contractual provision in an
insurance policy conflicts with a statute, the contractual provision is invalid and the contract must
be reformed.” State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Estate of Fortin, 350 Mich App 21, 31; ___ NW3d
___ (2024) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
In MemberSelect, 343 Mich App at 379, Michael McGilligan was injured while servicing
Nicholas Nannoshi’s vehicle, which fell on top of him. McGilligan was insured under a
commercial automobile no-fault insurance policy issued by Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Company (Hartford) to McGilligan, doing business as McGilligan Plumbing and Heating. Id. The
PIP endorsement to the policy provided PIP coverage only “when a ‘covered auto’—one
specifically identified as covered in the policy—was involved in the injury-causing event.” Id. at
379-380. Hartford denied McGilligan’s claim for PIP benefits on the basis that a covered auto
was not involved in the incident that caused McGilligan’s injuries. Id.
McGilligan then sought PIP benefits from MemberSelect Insurance Company
(MemberSelect), the insurer of Nannoshi’s vehicle. Id. at 380. MemberSelect paid PIP benefits
to McGilligan and thereafter sought reimbursement from Hartford, which again denied coverage.
MemberSelect filed suit against Hartford, and the trial court granted summary disposition in
Hartford’s favor. Id. This Court reversed, reasoning that McGilligan was an “insured” under
Hartford’s policy. Id. at 383. We further stated as follows:
Hartford makes much of the fact that it sold McGilligan a “commercial” policy that
included a designation (“07”) indicating that PIP coverage applied only to
“specifically described ‘autos’ ” in the policy—the autos owned or insured by
McGilligan. This policy language does not overcome the statutory requirement that
Hartford must pay PIP benefits to “the person named in the policy.” Hartford
cannot opt out of the statutory PIP requirement by designating autos instead of
people for PIP coverage; doing so would contravene the cardinal rule under the no-
fault act that persons, not motor vehicles, are insured against PIP loss. And, we
note, the Legislature has not created a “commercial policy” exception to MCL
500.3114(1). [Id.]
Finally, we recognized that “[i]f insurers try to avoid the provision of mandatory no-fault benefits,
their policies must be read to conform with the statutes,” and concluded that “Hartford attempted
to avoid its duty to provide PIP coverage for the insured named in its policy.” Id. at 387.
MemberSelect is on all fours with the instant case. Turner was the “person named in the
policy” as stated in MCL 500.3114(1). The non-trucking automobile coverage form included a
designation “10,” meaning that only the “autos” listed on the certificate of insurance were “covered
autos.” Turner’s 2008 Peterbilt tractor was the only auto listed. The certificate of insurance also
indicated that PIP coverage was included in the policy, and a PIP endorsement accompanied the
policy. As in MemberSelect, Acceptance cannot opt out of mandatory PIP coverage by designating
autos rather than people for PIP coverage. “A central tenet of Michigan’s no-fault act . . . is that
when it comes to personal protection insurance (PIP) coverage, “persons, not motor vehicles, are
insured against loss.’ ” MemberSelect, 343 Mich App at 378-379 (quotation marks and citation

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
omitted). As previously noted, MCL 500.3114(1) states that “a personal injury protection
insurance policy . . . applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy . . . .”
(Emphasis added). Because the Acceptance policy conflicts with the statute, the contractual
limitation of PIP benefits only to accidents involving the Peterbilt tractor is invalid, and the
contract must be reformed to comply with the statute. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 350 Mich App
at 31.
Acceptance argues that the facts of this case are indistinguishable from Alesevic, which
Acceptance maintains involved the same policy at issue in this case. In Alesevic, Acceptance
insured the plaintiff, Haris Alesevic, under a bobtail policy pertaining to his 2007 Volvo tractor.
Alesevic, unpub op at 2. Alesevic was also a named insured on a policy issued by Progressive
Michigan Insurance Company (Progressive). Id. Alesevic was injured while a passenger in
another vehicle after the vehicle crashed through a fence and into a pole in a parking lot. Id. at 1-
2. Acceptance argued that it was not responsible for providing PIP benefits to Alesevic because
its policy applied only to accidents involving the Volvo tractor. Acceptance also argued that an
exclusion in the PIP endorsement applied because Alesevic was a named insured on the
Progressive policy. The trial court granted Acceptance’s motion for summary disposition. Id.
On appeal, Progressive argued that it and Acceptance were in the same order of priority to
provide coverage because Alesevic was a named insured on his policy with Acceptance, and the
PIP endorsement in Acceptance’s policy stated it would provide PIP benefits consistent with the
no-fault act if Alesevic was injured in an accident “that resulted from the use of ‘an auto’ as ‘an
auto,’ ” which included the vehicle involved in the accident. Id. at 3. This Court disagreed, stating
that the language of the certificate of insurance in Acceptance’s policy “plainly and
unambiguously” precluded coverage if the accident did not involve the Volvo. Id. This Court also
determined that the language of the PIP endorsement did not broaden the language in the certificate
of insurance to provide PIP coverage for injuries caused by accidents that did not involve the
Volvo. Id. at 4. Further, this Court stated that even if the PIP endorsement applied, it excluded
coverage if the injured person was a named insured under another policy, and Alesevic was a
named insured on Progressive’s policy. Id. at 4-5. Finally, this Court rejected Progressive’s
argument that, because the no-fault act mandates PIP coverage, the named-insured exclusion was
unenforceable. Relying on Johnson v USA Underwriters, 328 Mich App 223; 936 NW2d 834
(2019), this Court opined that the no-fault act does not require every insurer to provide mandatory
coverages, and an insurer is free to sell only optional insurance coverage. Alesevic, unpub op at
5-6.
Notably, this Court decided Alesevic before it issued its published decision in
MemberSelect, which we are bound to follow. See MCR 7.215(J)(1). Moreover, MemberSelect
focused on the language of MCL 500.3114(1), which states that PIP coverage applies “to the
person named in the policy” rather than to a vehicle listed on the policy. Finally, we note that
although this Court in Johnson stated that an insurer is free to sell optional coverages only,

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
Acceptance did not sell optional coverages only. Rather, it sold Turner a policy that included PIP
coverage, and the no-fault act provides that PIP coverage applies to people and not to vehicles.
Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting Acceptance’s motion for summary disposition.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi

-- 6 of 6 --