Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 114848; Published
Judges Brennan, Michael J. Kelly, and Cynar; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 182 Mich App 552; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published, unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of a claim by Safeco that Economy Fire & Casualty Company was first in priority to pay no-fault benefits to Mary Baker, a named policyholder of motor vehicle insurance issued in Indiana by Economy, for injuries she received in a motor vehicle accident occurring in Michigan in 1987.
Mary Baker was an occupant of an involved motor vehicle owned by her son, whose vehicle was insured under a policy of motor vehicle insurance issued by plaintiff Safeco in Indiana. Safeco paid Mary Baker's PIP benefits, and sued Economy for recovery of those benefits under the priority provisions of §3114(1).
Both Safeco and Economy transact business in the state of Michigan. At the time of the accident, both insurance companies had on file with the state of Michigan, a written certification in accordance with §3163 of the Michigan No-Fault Insurance Act. That section requires that insurers authorized to transact automobile liability and personal and property protection insurance in Michigan shall file and maintain a written certification that injuries occurring in Michigan from ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle by a non-resident insured under its policy shall be subject to the no-fault system.
Defendant had filed its certification in 1973 as required under Subsection (1) of §3163 for a foreign insurance corporation authorized to write automobile insurance liability policies in Michigan. However, defendant voluntarily withdrew its authorization to write automobile insurance in 1983, but never withdrew its certification on file with the State. After 1983, defendant continued to be authorized in Michigan to transact insurance business, but not automobile liability insurance or workers' compensation insurance. The trial court found that when defendant unilaterally and voluntarily withdrew its authorization to write auto insurance in Michigan in 1983, its certification, filed as required by §3163 of the No-Fault Act automatically terminated at that time.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that § 3163 makes no reference to or provisions for automatic termination of certification in the event authorization to write automobile insurance in Michigan is withdrawn. There is no such provision contained within the No-Fault Act as a whole, nor should such a provision be impliedly inserted into the Act by this court.
The court, quoting from Kriko v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 137 Mich App 528 (1984) noted that there are at least two benefits that an out-of-state insurance company receives by filing and maintaining on file a §3163 certificate, even though it does not write any motor vehicle insurance policies in this state. Those benefits are the fact that its automobile policies are more marketable, and in addition, the insurers obtain the "rights and immunities" under the No-Fault Act. Therefore, the court held that there was no reason to conclude that the Legislature intended an out-of-state insurer to have the unilateral option to either rely on or render void its properly filed and maintained no-fault certification depending on whether the provisions of the No-Fault Act benefit in a particular situation, or subjected to viability.
