The Michigan Supreme Court reversed an appellate court’s decision that summary judgment should have been granted against the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan and the Michigan Auto Insurance Brokerage Facility because the plaintiff was injured in an out-of-state motor vehicle accident.
in Steenhaus v. MAIPF (MiLW 07-106247, p. 6), the Michigan Court of Appeals stated in a published decision that the statute governing the eligibility of claims brought through MACP requires that claimants seeking benefits The court held that it is required to show that the accident occurred in Michigan.
“because [plaintiff’s] “If the accident occurred in Ohio, the defendant had the right to deny his claim for PIP benefits,” Judge Christina Robinson Garrett explained, reversing the trial court’s ruling.
On remand, the justices directed the appellate court to address the impact of MCL 500.3114 on whether plaintiffs are eligible to claim benefits through the Michigan Quota Claims Plan.
Bonus battle
Marquis Steenhaus applied for PIP benefits through the Michigan Assignment Claims Plan (MACP) after being injured in a car accident in Ohio.
Stanhouse filed a lawsuit against MACP and the Michigan Auto Insurance Brokerage Facility (MAIPF) for refusing to assign an insurance company to pay Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) benefits.
MACP and MAIPF moved for summary disposition. They argued that in order to claim PIP benefits through MACP under MCL 500.3172(1), the accident giving rise to the claim must have occurred in Michigan. Because there was no genuine issue of fact that Mr. Stanhouse’s accident occurred in Ohio, he was not entitled to receive his PIP benefits through his MACP.
Steenhouse challenged the interpretation of MCL 500.3172(1) in its response. He claimed that he was entitled to his PIP benefits under MCL 500.3111 because he was an injured occupant of the vehicle in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the United States, and is a Michigan resident.
He added that MCL 500.3113, which specifies who is not eligible to receive PIP benefits, does not address out-of-state accidents involving in-state residents.
Defendants argued that MCL 500.3172, not MCL 500.3111, applies here because it specifically relates to MACP and MAIPF.
The Wayne County Circuit Court held that “MCL 500.3172 is inconsistent with MCL 500.3111 and cannot be construed to deprive Michigan residents of compensation allocated to them simply because they were injured in an accident in another state.” Defendant’s motion for summary disposition was denied.
The trial court also denied the defendants’ request for reconsideration, stating, “We do not believe that uninsured Michigan residents who are injured in an accident that occurs in another state would lose their right to compensation through the MAIPF.” explained.
MACP and MAIPF
MACP is operated by MAIPF and assigns no-fault insurance claims by people who do not have PIP coverage to participating insurance companies.
However, claims brought through a MACP are different from those brought under a no-fault insurance policy. Under no-fault law, eligibility requirements for PIP benefits vary depending on the situation.
Here, the parties dispute whether they are entitled to PIP benefits through MACP if the accident giving rise to the claim occurred outside of Michigan. The answer, Garrett said, lies in the proper interpretation of MCL 500.3172(1).
“Eligibility for PIP benefits through MACP […] It depends on whether the claimant meets the eligibility criteria set forth in MCL 500.3172(1), which states in pertinent part: Motorists in this state can claim personal protection insurance benefits through their assigned claims plan if any of the following apply: “Thus, to qualify for benefits under MACP, a claimant must prove that his or her injury arose from “owning, operating, maintaining, or using a motor vehicle.” in this state”
Because Stanhouse’s accident occurred in Ohio, the language of the law makes clear that MACP and MAIPF are not obligated to provide him with PIP benefits.
“Our Supreme Court has suggested as much before, stating in a footnote: ‘At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was out of state. If the accident had occurred within the state; He would have been covered by a no-fault insurance claims plan,” Garrett wrote. “While the proverb is in; roll man [v. Hawkeye-Security Ins Co.], we will adopt that interpretation here. ”
Steenhouse’s argument that the use of “or” in the statute meant coverage by MACP was appropriate was unsuccessful, but Garrett said his interpretation was “wrong.” Ta.
“Applying the ‘automobile as a motor vehicle in this state’ clause only to ‘use’ violates the plain language of MCL 500.3172(1),” the judge said. “Indeed, this clause necessarily Each Meaning of preceding noun: ownership, operation, maintenance, use. Otherwise, “ownership, operation, [and] “Maintenance” does not change and lacks any context. ”
Mr. Garrett also pointed out that the trial court’s conclusion that MCL 500.3172 is inconsistent with MCL 500.3111 misapplies principles of statutory construction.
“Given their different objectives, MCL 500.3111 and MCL 500.3172 can be harmonized to implement the intent of the no-fault law,” she said.
Although the provisions of the two statutes apply in different situations, MCL 500.3111 says nothing about MACP or MAIPF.
“Importing legal language related to claims brought under a no-fault policy to govern claims brought through MACP is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute,” Garrett wrote. . “Because Steanhouse is seeking PIP benefits through his MACP, he must meet the criteria in MCL 500.3172 rather than MCL 500.3111 to qualify. Therefore, the trial court held that the statutes accomplish separate purposes. It erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition because it can be read harmoniously as such.
Judges Mark J. Kavanaugh and Kirsten Frank Kelly joined Garrett in his opinion.