Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #227123; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Gage and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Reimbursement of Member Claims [3104]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the Michigan Insurance Commissioner had “primary jurisdiction” in this circuit court lawsuit against the Catastrophic Claims Association alleging that the Association and its member companies breached fiduciary duties to policyholders by issuing a refund in the amount of $180 per vehicle from a surplus remitted by the Association to the member insurance companies. The plaintiffs argued that the amount of the refund was disproportionate because it did not take into account the pro rata contribution of each policyholder to the surplus that was being remitted. The circuit court lawsuit alleged a class action. The circuit court ruled that the Insurance Commissioner should have primary jurisdiction over this case, because it “would focus the parties’ arguments on the correct nature of the refunds and the legal and factual reasoning behind the manner in which the refunds were rewarded. A judicial determination at this point, without deferring to the primary jurisdiction of the Commissioner, would allow the circuit court to decide the matter without the benefit of the Commissioner’s review of the facts and law in this case. The court would have to proceed without the benefit of the Commissioner’s analysis of how a ruling adverse to defendants in the instant case would affect the statutory operations of the MCCA and the ultimate return of future surplus assessments to policyholders. Thus, this case does not involve basic issues that courts address on a regular basis and that are within the conventional experiences of judges. We are convinced that the Commissioner is best equipped to review the particular facts and laws at issue in this case and to best anticipate the effect of a ruling adverse to defendants. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that the Commissioner had primary jurisdiction over this case.”
