June 10, 2026
/
seva firm
By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq. The Seva Law Firm
Case: Bruner v. Caldwell, No. 372017 (Mich. Ct. App. June 10, 2026) (Unpublished)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Panel: Bazzi, P.J., and Rick and Maldonado, JJ. Decision: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded — Per Curiam
Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court, Case No. 23-001871-NI
Read the full opinion here (https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49cb9e/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20260610_c372017_43_372017.opn.pdf)
- Introduction
In a significant decision for injured motorcyclists across Michigan, the Court of Appeals has confirmed that when a higher-priority insurer’s PIP coverage runs out, an injured motorcyclist can continue down the priority ladder and seek benefits from a lower-priority insurer. In Bruner v. Caldwell, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PIP claim against a lower-priority insurer, applying the recent holding in Mary Free Bed Rehab Hospital v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (2026). However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims, finding that she did not qualify as an “insured” under the relevant policy because she owned the motorcycle she was riding at the time of the accident.
- Facts
On August 11, 2022, Graziella Bruner was riding her motorcycle in Wayne, Michigan, when she was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by Alisha Danielle Caldwell. Bruner suffered extensive injuries requiring significant medical treatment.
Caldwell’s auto insurance was through USA Underwriters, which provided $250,000 in PIP medical coverage and $50,000/$100,000 in bodily injury liability coverage. There was no dispute that USA Underwriters was the highest-priority insurer under the motorcycle priority statute, MCL 500.3114(5). USA Underwriters tendered the full $250,000 PIP limit and the $50,000 bodily injury limit to Bruner — completely exhausting the policy.
A second policy was also in play. Federated Reserve Insurance Company had issued a commercial auto policy to Bruner Plumbing & Heating Co., Bruner’s husband’s business. Although Bruner herself was not a named insured and her motorcycle was not covered under the policy, her husband James Bruner was listed as a named individual for PIP and UM/UIM coverage.
Bruner sued multiple defendants, including Federated Reserve, seeking additional PIP benefits and UM/UIM coverage. After the other defendants were dismissed by stipulation, Federated Reserve moved for summary disposition on both claims.
On the PIP claim, Federated Reserve argued that because USA Underwriters was the highest-priority insurer and had already been identified, Federated Reserve bore no liability — regardless of whether USA Underwriters’ coverage was exhausted. The trial court agreed, ruling that MCL 500.3114(5) did not allow a motorcyclist to “stack insurers or continue down the list” after identifying a higher-priority insurer.
On the UM/UIM claims, Federated Reserve argued that Bruner was not an “insured” under the policy because she was not occupying a “covered auto” at the time of the accident. The trial court agreed, noting that the policy endorsements excluded motorcycles from the definition of an “auto” and that Bruner was therefore not occupying a covered vehicle.
- Issues
Two issues were presented on appeal:
First, whether the no-fault act permits an injured motorcyclist to recover PIP medical benefits from a lower-priority insurer under MCL 500.3114(5) after the higher-priority insurer’s PIP coverage has been exhausted.
Second, whether Bruner qualified as an “insured” entitled to UM/UIM benefits under the Federated Reserve policy when she was riding a motorcycle she personally owned at the time of the accident.
- Holding
On the PIP claim, the Court reversed. The Court applied the recently decided Mary Free Bed Rehab Hospital v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (2026), which squarely addressed this issue. Prior to the 2019 amendments to the no-fault act, PIP medical benefits were unlimited, so identifying the highest-priority insurer was typically sufficient to resolve coverage disputes involving motorcyclists. After the 2019 amendments, however, policyholders can elect limited or even zero PIP coverage. This means a higher-priority insurer’s coverage may be capped at $250,000, $50,000, or nothing at all — leaving an injured motorcyclist with medical expenses that far exceed the available benefits.
The Court held that the plain language of MCL 500.3114(5) establishes a sequential list of insurers and “nothing in the language of Section 3114(5) . . . prohibits continuing down the priority ladder to obtain benefits if a higher-priority insurer’s policy is inadequate.” The Court emphasized that denying an injured motorcyclist access to their own unlimited-coverage policy simply because a higher-priority policy happened to be capped “runs counter to the spirit of the no-fault act and its 2019 amendments which prioritize personal choice in insurance policies.”
Because USA Underwriters’ $250,000 PIP coverage was exhausted and Bruner had additional medical expenses, she was entitled to pursue her PIP claim against Federated Reserve as a lower-priority insurer. The trial court’s dismissal of this claim was reversed and the case was remanded.
Notably, Federated Reserve attempted to argue on appeal that a specific exclusion in its policy’s Michigan PIP endorsement would bar Bruner’s claim. The Court declined to consider this argument because Federated Reserve had not raised it in the trial court, holding that it could not consider a new defense for the first time on appeal. The Court expressly stated it offered “no opinion” on whether Federated Reserve could raise that defense on remand.
On the UM/UIM claims, the Court affirmed. Because UM/UIM coverage is not mandated by the no-fault act, the Court analyzed the claim under ordinary contract interpretation principles. The Federated Reserve policy listed Bruner Plumbing & Heating Co. — a corporation — as the named insured. Under the policy’s UM/UIM endorsement, when the named insured is a corporation, an “insured” is defined as anyone “occupying” a covered “auto.” A covered “auto” was defined as one owned by the named insured, i.e., the corporation. Bruner’s motorcycle was not owned by the corporation, so she was not occupying a covered auto.
The policy also contained a broadened coverage endorsement that listed James Bruner as a “named individual” and extended UM/UIM coverage to named individuals and their family members while occupying any auto not owned by the named insured — except any auto owned by the named individual or a family member. Because Bruner owned the motorcycle herself, this exception applied, and she could not qualify as an insured under the broadened coverage endorsement either.
The Court rejected Bruner’s argument that Federated Reserve had waived the right to argue that the corporation (rather than James Bruner individually) was the named insured, finding that while Federated Reserve’s summary disposition briefing was “at worst, confusing on this point,” there was no intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right.
- Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Bruner’s UM/UIM claims against Federated Reserve and reversed the dismissal of her PIP claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. The decision reinforces the growing body of law establishing that Michigan’s motorcycle PIP priority statute creates a true sequential priority system — not a one-and-done identification of the highest-priority insurer.
- What Does This Mean for Our Clients?
This decision has major implications for anyone injured in a motorcycle accident in Michigan, especially after the 2019 no-fault reforms. Here is what you need to know:
If you are a motorcyclist and the at-fault driver’s PIP coverage runs out, you are not out of luck. Under Bruner v. Caldwell and Mary Free Bed, the priority list in MCL 500.3114(5) is sequential. When the first-in-priority insurer’s coverage is exhausted, you can move down the list to the next insurer. This is critical given that many policies now carry limited coverage — $250,000 or even $50,000 — which can be consumed quickly by serious injuries.
The 2019 no-fault reforms changed the landscape for motorcycle accident claims. Before 2019, unlimited PIP benefits meant that the highest-priority insurer almost always had enough coverage to pay all medical expenses. That is no longer the case. If you are a motorcyclist and have been told your benefits are exhausted, you may have additional coverage available through lower-priority insurers. Do not accept a denial without exploring all options.
UM/UIM coverage depends on the specific policy language, and owning your motorcycle can work against you. In this case, Bruner was unable to claim UM/UIM benefits under her husband’s employer’s policy because she owned the motorcycle she was riding. Many commercial and personal auto policies contain similar ownership exclusions. If you are a motorcyclist, it is worth reviewing your household’s auto insurance policies carefully to understand whether UM/UIM coverage would apply in the event of an accident.
Insurance companies will fight to avoid paying lower-priority PIP claims — but the law is on your side. Federated Reserve argued that it had no obligation to pay simply because a higher-priority insurer existed. The Court of Appeals disagreed. If an insurer is telling you that your claim is denied because another insurer was responsible, they may be wrong — especially if that other insurer’s coverage has been exhausted.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident and your insurance company has denied your claim or told you that benefits are exhausted, contact The Seva Law Firm. We understand the complexities of Michigan’s no-fault priority system, and we will fight to make sure you receive every dollar of coverage you are entitled to.
Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.