SWOOPE v. Citizens Insurance Co. of the Midwest

By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq.

The Seva Law Firm

Case: Swoope v. Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, No. 364924 (Mich. Ct. App. June 18, 2026) (Unpublished)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Panel: Letica, P.J., and O’Brien and Cameron, JJ.

Decision: Reversed and Remanded — Per Curiam

Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court, Case No. 21-011402-NF

Read the full opinion here (https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49dc34/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20260618_c364924_86_364924o.opn.pdf)

1. Introduction

The Michigan Court of Appeals has issued an important decision clarifying the scope of MCL 500.3113(a) — the provision of the no-fault act that bars personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits when a person uses a vehicle that was “taken unlawfully.” In Swoope v. Citizens Insurance Co. of the Midwest, the Court held on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court that the plaintiff was barred from recovering PIP benefits because she knowingly took her friend’s vehicle without permission during a family emergency. The decision highlights a critical change in the law: the 2019 amendments to the no-fault act eliminated the former “reasonable belief” safe harbor, replacing it with a broader “knew or should have known” standard that makes it significantly harder for individuals to recover benefits when they use a vehicle without the owner’s consent.

2. Facts

In October 2020, plaintiff Carlonda Naishe Swoope was staying at her friend Kandice Valentine’s house when she received a phone call from her mother. Her mother reported that she was experiencing chest pains and that the ambulance “wasn’t coming fast enough.” Swoope, without asking Valentine for permission, grabbed Valentine’s keys and took her vehicle to drive to her mother’s home. Swoope had never driven Valentine’s vehicle before and did not have a valid driver’s license. On the way, Swoope was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered injuries.

Swoope applied for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP), and her claim was assigned to Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest. Citizens denied coverage, arguing that Swoope was barred from receiving benefits under MCL 500.3113(a) because she was using a vehicle that had been taken unlawfully. Swoope filed suit, and Citizens moved for summary disposition.

The trial court denied Citizens’ motion. Citizens appealed, and in its first opinion (Swoope I, 350 Mich App 104 (2023)), the Court of Appeals ruled against Swoope, holding she was barred from PIP benefits because she was unlawfully operating the vehicle without a license. The Michigan Supreme Court then reversed in Swoope II (2026), clarifying that the proper analysis under MCL 500.3113(a) focuses on whether the vehicle was “taken unlawfully” — not whether it was “operated unlawfully.” The Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to address the alternative argument: whether Swoope’s taking of the vehicle was unlawful.

3. Issues

The central question on remand was whether plaintiff knew or should have known that her taking of Valentine’s vehicle was unlawful under the amended version of MCL 500.3113(a). Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Swoope knowingly took the vehicle without the owner’s authority.

A secondary issue was whether the emergency circumstances — Swoope’s mother’s medical distress — could excuse or create a factual dispute about the lawfulness of the taking. Swoope argued that she “reasonably believed” she was entitled to take the vehicle given the emergency, and that her friendship with Valentine supported this belief.

4. Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Swoope was barred from recovering PIP benefits under MCL 500.3113(a). The Court reached this conclusion based on the undisputed facts and the plain language of the amended statute.

First, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Swoope knowingly took Valentine’s vehicle without permission. Swoope’s own deposition testimony was clear: she did not ask Valentine for permission, she “just got the car” because of the family emergency, she had never used Valentine’s vehicle before, and she confirmed that she “had no permission to operate the vehicle at the time.” This testimony established that Swoope intended to take the vehicle without consent and did so knowingly.

Second — and most critically — the Court rejected Swoope’s argument that her friendship with Valentine and the emergency circumstances created a factual dispute about whether she “reasonably believed” she could take the vehicle. The Court explained that “reasonable belief” is no longer the legal standard. Under the prior version of MCL 500.3113(a), an individual could still recover PIP benefits if they “reasonably believed” they were entitled to take and use the vehicle. But the Legislature amended this language, removing that safe-harbor provision and replacing it with a “knew or should have known” scienter requirement.

As the Court of Appeals previously explained in Ahmed v. Tokio Marine America Ins Co, 337 Mich App 1, 10 (2021), this change “broadened the provision governing disqualification from eligibility for benefits.” The Legislature deliberately eliminated the reasonable-belief exception, meaning that even sympathetic circumstances — like a medical emergency — cannot save a claim when the undisputed facts show the person knowingly took the vehicle without the owner’s authority.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Citizens’ motion for summary disposition and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court did not retain jurisdiction. The practical result is that Swoope is barred from recovering PIP benefits for her injuries because she took Valentine’s vehicle without permission, regardless of the emergency that motivated her actions.

6. What Does This Mean for Our Clients?

This decision carries important lessons for anyone involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving someone else’s vehicle. Here is what you need to know:

The law on “unlawful taking” has changed significantly. Before the 2019 no-fault reforms, a person who took a vehicle without permission could still recover PIP benefits if they “reasonably believed” they were entitled to use it. That safe harbor no longer exists. Under the current version of MCL 500.3113(a), the question is whether you “knew or should have known” that taking the vehicle was unlawful. This is a much easier standard for insurance companies to meet when denying claims.

Emergencies do not automatically excuse taking someone’s vehicle without permission. This is perhaps the hardest part of the Swoope decision. Even though Swoope was trying to help her mother during a medical crisis, the Court held that the emergency did not change the legal analysis. If you take a vehicle without the owner’s permission, the statute bars your claim — regardless of why you took it.

Always get explicit permission before using someone else’s vehicle. This case makes clear that assumptions about permission are not enough. If you are in a situation where you need to use someone else’s car, take the time to ask — even if it feels urgent. A verbal “yes” from the owner can be the difference between having coverage and being left with nothing.

If you were injured in an accident while using someone else’s vehicle, get legal advice immediately. The analysis under MCL 500.3113(a) is fact-specific, and the Michigan Supreme Court has identified important distinctions — such as whether the owner expressly prohibited the use versus situations where there was no express prohibition. An experienced no-fault attorney can evaluate the specific facts of your case to determine whether you are eligible for PIP benefits.

This case also underscores the importance of the Michigan Supreme Court’s distinction between “taking” and “operating.” While Swoope ultimately lost on the taking issue, the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Swoope II established that MCL 500.3113(a) focuses on whether the vehicle was taken unlawfully, not whether it was operated unlawfully. This distinction could benefit other claimants in different factual scenarios.

If you have been denied PIP benefits by an insurance company — whether because of an alleged unlawful taking, a licensing issue, or any other reason — contact The Seva Law Firm. We understand the complexities of Michigan’s no-fault system and will fight to make sure you receive the benefits 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.