Law360 (June 22, 2026, 4:10 PM EDT) -- A Michigan appellate court has pivoted its reasoning for finding a driver who crashed her friend's car is ineligible for personal protection insurance under the state's No-Fault Act, this time grounding its decision in the fact she took the vehicle without permission rather than because she was driving without a license.

Carlonda Naishe Swoope isn't eligible for personal protection insurance — or PIP — under the No-Fault Act, and a trial court was wrong not to dismiss her claims alleging Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest inappropriately denied her coverage, a three-judge panel said in an unpublished opinion on Friday.

Under Michigan's No-Fault Act, a person is not eligible for PIP benefits for accidental bodily injury if they are "willingly operating or willingly using a motor vehicle or motorcycle that was taken unlawfully, and the person knew or should have known that the motor vehicle or motorcycle was taken unlawfully."

There is no question that Swoope knowingly took her friend's vehicle without permission, so she is ineligible for benefits, the panel said.

This was the second time an appellate court panel determined Swoope wasn't eligible for PIP benefits, yet Friday's ruling comes after the Michigan Supreme Court said the Court of Appeals answered the wrong question in the case's first appeal.

Swoope appealed after the Michigan Court of Appeals in December 2023 said that because she had been driving without a license, she was ineligible for PIP benefits. She argued the panel's conflation of "taking" and "use" had "led to confusion of the issue," according to a July 2025 appellate court filing. 

In a March 10 opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court said the lower appellate court conducted the wrong inquiry under the No-Fault law — MCL 500.3113(a) — and inappropriately focused on the fact Swoope had been driving without a license. The first appellate court panel considered whether Swoope was operating the vehicle unlawfully and not whether she had taken the vehicle unlawfully, which is the appropriate question, the Michigan Supreme Court said.

"The correct inquiry requires a court to focus on whether the taking of the vehicle was unlawful, not whether the operation of the vehicle was unlawful. Plaintiff's status as an unlicensed driver provides no insight as to whether she had unlawfully gained possession of the vehicle. How the driver operated that vehicle has no bearing on whether MCL 500.3113(a) bars recovery of PIP benefits," the state's top court said in its March opinion.

In October 2020, Swoope was at Kandice Valentine's house when Swoope's mother called because she was having a medical emergency and the ambulance "wasn't coming fast enough," according to the Friday opinion.

Swoope, who did not have a valid license or auto insurance, took Valentine's vehicle without permission and drove to her mother's house, but was involved in a car accident on the way. She applied for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan for her injuries, and her claim was assigned to Citizens.

Citizens denied the claim, and Swoope sued. Citizens sought summary disposition, which a Wayne County trial court denied.

On appeal, Swoope claimed there was still a question of fact regarding whether she "reasonably believed" she could take Valentine's vehicle because of the emergent circumstances and her friendship with Valentine.

The panel on Friday said that Swoope's "reasonable belief" is not the appropriate standard to consider.

A prior version of MCL 500.3113(a) specified that an individual could not recover PIP benefits if they took the vehicle unlawfully, unless they "reasonably believed" they could take and use the vehicle, according to the opinion. But Michigan lawmakers changed that language, and now courts must consider whether drivers "knew or should have known" the vehicle was illegally taken, according to the opinion.

That change "broadened the provision governing disqualification from eligibility for benefits," the panel said, quoting the 2021 Michigan Court of Appeals decision Ahmed v Tokio Marine America Ins Co.

The appellate court explained in Ahmed that Michigan lawmakers removed the "safe harbor provision" regarding an individual's reasonable belief and replaced it with a requirement under which a person is disqualified from receiving benefits if they "knew or should have known" that taking the vehicle was unlawful, according to the opinion.

Swoope cannot claim now that she "reasonably believed" she could take her friend's vehicle because of the emergency, the panel said on Friday.

"Accordingly, plaintiff's testimony established that she intended to take Valentine's vehicle despite not receiving permission, and in fact did so. Thus, there was no question of fact that plaintiff had knowingly taken Valentine's vehicle without permission under MCL 500.3113(a)," the panel wrote.

An attorney for Swoope, E. Jason Blankenship of The Law Office of E. Jason Blankenship PLLC, told Law360 that he thinks the Michigan Supreme Court correctly recognized the difference between "unlawful taking" and "unlawful use" in its decision. 

"The Supreme Court's decision in Swoope protects injured people and reinforces the purpose of Michigan's No-Fault Act, which is 'to provide victims of motor vehicle accidents assured, adequate and prompt reparation for certain economic losses,'" Blankenship said in a statement, quoting the Michigan Supreme Court's 2010 decision in McCormick v Carrier. "I was happy to be involved in the appellate work here."

Counsel for Citizens did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. 

Judges Anica Letica, Colleen A. O'Brien and Thomas C. Cameron sat on the panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Swoope is represented by E. Jason Blankenship of The Law Office of E. Jason Blankenship PLLC.

Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest is represented by Lori McAllister and Erin A. Sedmak of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The case is Carlonda Naishe Swoope v. Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, case number 364924, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

--Editing by Philip Shea.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.